Game News Oblivion will wait for the next holiday season

[kris]

So you're saying that if the developers add a spell that allows you to walk through walls and find that it has the potential of breaking quest paths when you use it, the game is at fault, rather than the spell itself, and the design of implementing it in the first place?
I just said that escaping from the dungeon without completing the quest would be potentially game breaking and thus exploitable, especially if you could re-enter the cave even after it was 'sealed' from the inside. If it were sealed on the outside permanently, and were you unable to return to the interior, it would be game breaking.

Oh yes, I'm sure you could argue that a 'good designer' wouldn't implement such locations, but I don't care about your arguments because such arguments would clearly be meant to demean the quality of Bethesda's work. No, the simple solution is to remove a potentially game breaking feature like mark/recall.

It's what you want it to be then. Being locked in is a little overused thing in many RPGs, regardless of it being plot or not. In a supposedly freeform game people that have a magic that could be used to escape situations like that should be able to do it. I see that as very refreshing, I see that as having another option of escaping a trap, having more options of solving a problem is a good idea in my book.

There is several options to solve it if it is plot critical. the first is mentioned before here and that is having the door/dungeon/room reset after the spell have been casted. The second is to have the spell disabled in it, preferably with a explanation as to why it is like that, like the classic "Magic don't work here". Or it could be explained in some way that it is obvious to the player that he can't go back in the dungeon.

Personally I never liked artificial ways of stopping or limiting the player, even if I can live with them.

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

And "you can't cast that spell here!" isn't an artificial way of limiting the player?

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

And "you can't cast that spell here!" isn't an artificial way of limiting the player?

No, it's a magical way of limiting the player... Yeah, magical. That's it.

 

[obediah]

And "you can't cast that spell here!" isn't an artificial way of limiting the player?

Well since magic doesn't exist in the real world, the more complex a game gets the harder it can be to resolve issues. Why is it a stretch to say that countermeasures and anti-spell spells would be developed. We have bullets, and we have armor, we have cell phones, and we have cell phone blockers, we have peeping toms and we have curtains, we have disease and we have vaccines. If we had teleporters, people would be working on anti-teleporter shielding.

Teleport and it's like are an awesome hallmark of magic. Not having it is a real bummer. The fact that it can be tricky to implement has no affect on that.

 

[Wonder Cheese]

Sol claimed

Nothing I've said is difficult to comprehend. Please tell me if you need me to repeat anything in Basic English. I'll understand if you're not a natural speaker of the English language, but please don't try to demean my arguments with comments like these. You're only making a fool of yourself.

in an attempt to defend this runon mess:

Oh yes, I'm sure he was joking as it had been deemed, albeit 'retardedly' by me, and that he agrees upon the usefulness of mark/recall in spite of the god damn fact that the spell was removed, and the fact that it was explained why it was removed several times by the developers themselves on grounds that it was exploitable, and also unnecessary due to the implementation of the Travel Map (which is inaccessible from interiors, due to the exploit).

That's not English, that's internet garble speak. I'm not gonna bag on someone for typos or easy mistakes, but don't expect to write a sentence like that and then be able to impune someone else's English.

Clearly, you fail to understand why mark/recall would be game breaking because it is plain that you don't know anything about the game other than all the stupid little biases you have for it.

Again, I'll explain why I don't care. I never made any comment about the effect of mark/recall on the game or whether it could be game breaking. I expressed the opinion that it wasn't an exploit. << That has nothing to do with the argument you are presenting. You could write a lengthy dissertation about all the game mechanics you want. While that may or may not be impressive, it has nothing to do with what I was arguing, which is that the use of mark/recall by a player in Morrowind was not, in and of itself, an exploit.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

My point was you simply called him a faggot for disagreeing with him. Now, I know this is the Codex, and verbal (textual?) abuse is par for the course, but you're just trying to be insulting simply because he expresses an alternate opinion to you. I say 'trying', as attempting to attack someone's sexuality is pretty weak.

Don't be gay, Sparky! Don't be gay!

 

[Sol Invictus]

My point was you simply called him a faggot for disagreeing with him. Now, I know this is the Codex, and verbal (textual?) abuse is par for the course, but you're just trying to be insulting simply because he expresses an alternate opinion to you. I say 'trying', as attempting to attack someone's sexuality is pretty weak.

Do you have some kind of reading comprehension problem? I called him a faggot for attacking me. He wasn't "disagreeing" with me. Look at his posts to me. In none of them was he actually disagreeing with me. TwinFalls was attacking me for my use of Ockham's Razor (because he doesn't understand metaphors). Attacking him for an alternate opinion? Hardly. You make it sound as if he was on-topic and that I was attacking him for his views on Oblivion, or its implementation of mark/recall. None of his posts towards me in this thread had any bearing whatsoever on mark/recall or Oblivion. No, this isn't a "difference of opinion". You just need to learn how to read.

To say that his attacks of my use of Ockham's Razor were "par on course" is utter drivel. None of the things he was saying had anything to do with the discussions at hand and he had no interest of countering my arguments about mark/recall. He was only interested in attacking me for my use of Ockham's Razor by calling me a "dumbass". He even says so in his post.

And, yes, you do have a right to defend yourself, but there wasn't a petty groundless personal attack against you, so you had no reason to respond with one.
'Violence begets violence' although I'm sure you knew that already.

My opinion.

Whatever. It means little enough to me, at the end of the day.

To say that his attacks towards my use of Ockham's razor were not 'petty groundless attacks' is nothing short of laughable. Anyone with a brain could see that none of the things he was saying to me had any relevence to the topic that the rest of us were discussing. TwinFalls realizes this (see his response to me telling him to stop being immature and to stay on topic), but you don't seem to. Why is that?

but you're just trying to be insulting simply because he expresses an alternate opinion to you. I say 'trying', as attempting to attack someone's sexuality is pretty weak.

I think you're 'trying' to be insulting to me but telling me that attacking someone's sexuality when faggot is in fact a colloquialism used to describe people who are acting like attention hungry pussies who can't stand to see other people have a normal discussion. It is not an actual attempt to attack anyone's sexuality so don't try pinning that one on me.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Strange, Sol...we do.

And you lace our gloves up for us every time you try to sound all high fallutin' with yer philosophikal termz that we all know and arent impressed by.

As for his spelling mistake..it was a typo. There's a diff3rence, 'tardo. He transposed the o and the e. Even you do that.

Pointing out your failures does contribute to the thread - it shaves away the credibility of your assertions.

I guess nobody ever pointed out the fallacy of using ad hominem attacks to win arguments. I'm not sure how you managed to make the connection between shooting down my use of Ockham's Razor as a metaphor with 'shaving away the credibility of my assertions'. So basically what you're saying is that because I used ockham's razor as a metaphor, my assertions that Mark/Recall was removed on the grounds that I've stated were all wrong.

You know, you really are a moron. Saying that my arguments don't mean jack shit because you're too stupid to grasp simple terms and regard them as 'high fallutin philosophy that we're not impressed by' makes you a total dimwit.

Don't worry DarkSign. Just you watch, someone stupid will insult me for calling you a moron because I'm held to a higher standard than everyone else here, it seems. I don't have a problem with that.

 

[kingcomrade]

I think you're 'trying' to be insulting to me but telling me that attacking someone's sexuality when faggot is in fact a colloquialism used to describe people who are acting like attention hungry pussies who can't stand to see other people have a normal discussion. It is not an actual attempt to attack anyone's sexuality so don't try pinning that one on me.

Didn't you read the thread "twinfalls is hardcore" ?
We had buttsecks.

 

[Doppelganger]

I can see that an incorrectly-applied-Ockham's-razor might do a world of good around here right now.

Pseudo-intellectually (meaning I just read Wiki):

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.

Translation: "To be a faggot, it's necessary first to have balls."

 

[obediah]

I can see that an incorrectly-applied-Ockham's-razor might do a world of good around here right now.

Pseudo-intellectually (meaning I just read Wiki):

Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate.

Translation: "To be a faggot, it's necessary first to have balls."

Ockham's razor and meme are too very valuable terms. Whenever I hear or see either, I know I can safely stop paying attention and move on with my life. I think there are about 1000 of these words, catch them all!

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Well, its official now. The TES FAQ now show "early 2006" as the release date. Forums are down in response, of course.

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

I always thought it was "Occam's Razor". But a search turned up both spellings, so I have learned something new today.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I always thought it was "Occam's Razor". But a search turned up both spellings, so I have learned something new today.

Are you allowed to tell us a little more about this release business now, MSFD?

 

[Micmu]

"Recall" spell, quickly!!

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

I can say "early 2006", but that's about it. Don't tell me you've forgotten "Spring 2002!!" already?

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

I can say "early 2006", but that's about it. Don't tell me you've forgotten "Spring 2002!!" already?

another gag order ...and the mystery continues...
well, you have lots more time now, get to wok on that mounted combat code!

 

[Drakron]

I can say "early 2006", but that's about it. Don't tell me you've forgotten "Spring 2002!!" already?

You guys could be hardcore and make a PS3 version ready for the PS3 european release date, a win-win situation.

 

[Dreagon]

I can say "early 2006", but that's about it. Don't tell me you've forgotten "Spring 2002!!" already?

I love how the FAQ over at Elder Scrolls was quietly updated to "early 2006" and they STILL won't make any statement on the forums. (except Pete making a snarky comment thanking a poster about telling him how to do his job....he should have listened)

 

[franc kaos]

I can say "early 2006", but that's about it. Don't tell me you've forgotten "Spring 2002!!" already?

another gag order ...and the mystery continues...
well, you have lots more time now, get to wok on that mounted combat code!

No, no, staves and Mark/Recall...

@ Sol:
Pretty interesting argument (about the M/R not the name calling). So, with approx 75 people working on this game, I'm assuming all highly intelligent and / or creative, this combined gestalt of pure brain power couldn't work out how to incorporate a spell that's been in all three games without breaking their game engine...

Thinking about it though, you might be right. They had to stop you killing important NPCs because it'd break the game (I know, they changed this, but a week later they've had to delay the game 2/3 months), the RAI sounds like it's on the knife edge (guards and mass rioting?), they couldn't implement staves or throwing stars, they couldn't make horses that could be used as pack animals, werewolves were too hard to do, and their NPCs all look like they've spent a fortnight in Innsmouth (see HP Lovecraft and the toad people). No offense to any devs lurking out there.

I'm all for interesting dungeons, and traps for the unwary, but I just can't see how that would make having a working M/R spell possible.

As for exploits, if you levitated in MW creatures wouldn't see you, have they also cut this spell out? If the only spells left are heal, shield, fireball and magic sword, I have a feeling that even the 5 min attention span fans will be returning this game in droves.

 

[Twinfalls]

TwinFalls was attacking me for my use of Ockham's Razor (because he doesn't understand metaphors).

Listen, Dumb fucking Fuck - Ockham's Razor is NOT a metaphor. It is a PRINCIPLE. Go and fucking learn what a metaphor is before you tell people they don't understand them.

And for the last time, Ockham's Razor does NOT mean 'choose the simplest solution to a problem'. It means ONLY this: 'if you must choose between conclusions - choose the one which makes the least assumptions.' It is a rule of thumb for theorising. It is NOT a prescription to dumb systems down simply because its the easiest thing to do. You are WRONG in invoking it for your argument.

I could not care less if this is not relevant to your argument. Your arguments about Mark/Recall are not worth piss to me, or anyone else. Your dumbing down of a well-known principle just because you want to sound intelligent, screams to be put right.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

It's nice to see that the maturity of Otaku Hanzo on these boards hasn't improved, with random newcomers like Wonder Cheese lowering the average even further.

Nice to see you're still a dickless assjerk. Mwah!

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

My point was you simply called him a faggot for disagreeing with him.

That's Ex for you. No one can have an opinion other than his without being a faggot. You're learning, young padawan.

 

[NOVD]

Your dumbing down of a well-known principle just because you want to sound intelligent, screams to be put right.

Well, you don't need to be so snobby about it. Sol Invictus's mistake was completely forgiveable. A search on google-scholar for "Occam's Razor" returns quite a few cases of misuse.

Plus,"if you must make reach a conclusion - choose the one which makes the least assumptions" isn't the best way of thinking about it. Occam's Razor's modern use lies in deciding between pairs of hypotheses which explain a phenomenon equally well ("of two hypotheses H and H', both of which explain E, the simpler is to be preferred").

 

[Twinfalls]

I'm not being 'snobby'. It is not that he's merely mistaken - its his sophistry in invoking it, completely incorrectly, to bolster an argument. Plus a complete refusal to admit he's wrong. It's not 'completely forgiveable' to be a pompous sophist and wrong to boot. Especially one who harasses a Polish forum user for misspelling English words.

Being snobby is formalising it and then quibbling over whether "simpler" in "the simpler is to be preferred" entails 'making the least assumptions' or not, as you've just done.