So, you're to cool for Oblivion? Why?

[DarkUnderlord]

You really think Oblivion and Diablo are even in the same league?

No. That wan't what I was trying to say. My point was that Diablo spawned a series of similar games, all of which failed to match up to what Diablo was. Morrowind / Oblivion as huge successess will only spawn more similar games. That is same perspective, same type of combat, similar dialogue. The same way Age of Empires spawned a series of "kind of Civilization" clones, most of which failed in some way or another.

Again, I said: I see page after page of people viciously attacking Bethesda and their work – presumably as a threat to something I can’t understand. Can you help me understand it?

Presumably as a threat. See above re: clones.

You don't seem to get it that we're all minorities here - minorities in a dying genre. When the native american's were defeated on the Plains it had more to do with fractionalization between the tribes (thus an inability to raise a unified front) than any superior techniques (beyond disease) the settler brought with them. Yeah, a bit of a non-sequitur but one with significance.

So we should all get together to support games which are widely supported anyway (how many other forums can you name where critiscism of Oblivion is as rampant as it is here) in some kind of perverted attempt to get the genre made better? How will that get us the games we actually want, as opposed to just more Oblivion?

We don't want 60% RPG or 65% RPG. We want 100% RPG. The 60% RPGs get enough support as it is.

Let me say this, ten years ago I sounded just like you - then I watched studio after studio shut down doors. Expecting others to fill the void, it slowly dawned on me that nobody was rising to that challenge. Today, I can't name 4 amazing developers for RPG titles. Nothing in the realm of Black Isles, amongst others.

Ten years ago was before Troika were even started. So in that time Troika, Obsidian and a few other companies (small ones mostly) have come and in some cases gone. What's important though, is that some of those companies have at least tried to develop "Real RPGs" even though they all ultimately failed miserably. Perhaps Troika would still be around if they'd matched the involved RPG style of Arcanum in their later games?

Wait.. what stops you from merely not leveling up every skill?

In most cases, human nature. Again though, that wasn't what I was tyring to get at. If you play Morrowind again for a second time, you don't really discover anything new that you didn't get first time around. That's because you can do every quest, join every guild and accomplish absolutely everything with only one character who during this process ends up becoming all powerful. Sure, you *can* limit yourself but I can also play make believe and imagine more involved dialogue and imaginery friends I have in the game and pretend everyone is actually reacting to me in a significant way when I become their next God. That's not why or how I like to play games though. IN the end, it comes down to "Well, I can do it all again with a new character and gain absolutle nothing new when it comes to the main plot and other quests, beyond doing those handful I didn't do with my earlier character build or I can just do those quests with this character...". Particularly when you found most of the other mandatory quests a pain in the arse (quests you'd have to do if you wanted to level up sufficiently to complete the handful "new" quests).

It's very possible to beat any RPG without maxing, even morrowind - just stick to the main quest. WHen you beat it, looks like you can relax in accomplishment. You don't have o keep exploring every isle on the map. Should the game be penalized because it gives you to much freedom to sandbox? Just play without the min/max attitude, and set your priorities. Eitherway, you're argument is against end-game aspects - something you wouldn't experience for at least 50 hours into it. Most games get boring at 20 hours, so even 30 isn't bad. Nobody maxed Morrowind in less than 20 hours without direct effort to do so.

Not entirely true. In Morrowind I became uver at level 13 when I founda Daedric Axe and had about an 80 - 90 axe skill (if I can recall correctly). At which point I tired of the linear main quest and jus wandered about the island playing whack a mole, seeing if there was actually anything interesting out there. I found a few things then once I'd explored the entire island thought "So why am I playing this game now?" and then went back to complete the main quest. I never touched it again because I'd done everything and each dungeon and the non-responsiveness of the characters I was involved and dealing with didn't hold any attraction for me.

Now this is a good argument, and I'm serious about that. This is the way I wish your whole reply was structured, opposed to reading as vaguely hostile attacks on what I initially posted.

Cut the bullshit. I can say the same thing about your intial trolling post, idiot. You ask for shit, I'm more than happy to oblige. If your first post was a little less silver spoon in mouth, maybe you would've gotten better responses? I don't mean to be rude, but did you think of that?

Those are very real concerns, the dialog and all, but I don't think TES has ever been an RPG system based around that aspect very much.

So? Does that mean I don't get to complain about it?

Final Fantasy IS an RPG, it focuses on Story.
Fallout IS an RPG, it focuses on Dialog.
TES ARE RPGs, they focus on Character Development.
(and, grudgingly, I could say Diablo was an RPG, it focused on Action).

By that argument, Grand Theft Auto is an RPG, it focuses on story too. But what's an RPG then? Another meaningless title to slap on a box in order to get sales?

Fallout, as fun as it was, had a fairly thin story.

I don't think so. It had just enough to make you want to find out more. Reading the holodisks, hacking into computers to find out extra information and so on revealed what had happened to the world and what the Master was up to.

Story, in these kind of RPGs take a backseat to Character and Dialog. TES doesn't eschew Dialog completely - no more than Fallout eschewed Story - but that's not the kind of RPG they design.

Well it'd better become the kind of RPG they design if they'r going to work on Fallout 3.

I can understand your desire for another Dialog rpg to arise (Arcanum was the last I played), but the fact another rare beast calling itself RPG isn't 100% of this breed isn't any reason to castigate it.

Sure it is.

There ya go ruining the warm fuzzy I was starting to grow for ya again, tisk - tisk. Civility beyond you? Shots like this just make your position seem more desperate - maybe it works with children but not anybody weaned on good debate. Keep your defense mechanisms to yourself, I've been out of highschool for years now.

Oh wait, is this what I should've posted in reply to your intial BS? Would I get to use the happy smiley too? Point is, we've had these arguments before. We've gone over Morrowind and the definition of RPGs to death in these forums. If you can't be arsed using the search function, why does everyone have to spell it out for you? Because you're ignorant?

What's a "True RPG"? Which game defines that?

Mostly Fallout and Arcanum to an extent as well. Also, use the search function for "True RPG". That's an old conversation too.

Even in P&P, you have games like ShadowRun (gibson-esque d&d), Paranoia (marx brothers meets sci-fi marxism), Rifts (across the map weirdness), and other that each focus - to lesser or greater degrees - on one of those attributes I defined above.

... and it's great that action people are getting their action RPGs and story people are getting their linear story RPGs. Where are our "dialogue RPGs" though, as you call them? Can you see any?

I've intimated why I feel its counterproductive. To mirror your opening, I could say "if you read my post like you claim, then maybe you'd understand why" but I'm not prickish enough to point that parrallel out. Seriously though, It's because of the RPGs being a dying animal argument I mentoned above.

Back again to having us just accept what we're given then (despite what you seem to claim otherwise)? There sure seems to be plenty of Action RPGs coming out for this "dying" genre. I'm not sure how the already dead "dialogue RPG" could die any further. And please, people have been saying various genres have died off at all sorts of points in time. I don't think us demanding a "dialogue RPG" is "counterproductive" to that.

Much like black people lived with an intense sense of solidarity during the civil rights era, any besieged subcultural minority is more productive in unity than division. I could use the labor movement of the 1930s, raver enclaves of the early 1990s or the Diggers of the 1960s as further modern examples.

Yet you seem to be arguing for the black people to accept drinking "coloured" water because gee-whillickers, black people are already a minority and a small and dieing breed, why push it further? They should just accept the small sacrificies they're given like being able to go to school at all and that freedom thing they got and live with it. After all, why keep pushing for this "right to vote" business?

*Whew* .. that was one Long ASS reply. You guys still awake? You really made it this far? Damn, wish I had a cookie to give ya. Take care, my friend ..

Trust me, they'll get longer.

 

[Data4]

Does anyone get the impression the TES forum "elite" had a secret meeting and elected their best Warrior to come tame the Codex Heathens?

This thread has now evolved into entertainment, in my oh-so humble, yet worthless opinion. :D

-D4

 

[Andyman Messiah]

I more get the feeling they sit around an IRC campfire doing that. IRC is ideal for discussing secret plans. They go to IRC, light a fire and sit there half-naked drumming the first three seconds of Queens "We Will Rock You" (because that's all they can manage) before they start a discussion about whatever they think is important. Like booting someone from their forum or what to do with those damn filthy Codexers.

It's a beautiful thing. God bless them all.

 

[whitemithrandir]

Fucking hell, another one? YOU HAVE YOUR OWN FORUMS. POST THERE.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

guys, you have to understand that you are whacky enough to be interesting to rest of the world, so you will have to learn to deal with people coming over out of mere curiosity and you are not kidding me: you enjoy the attention and the opportunity to flaunt you opinions

Nevertheless, forget it Rhapsody'n Blue the essence of it is that the definition of RPG at "the Codex" (although that is necessarily unfair, since there is a certain variety of opinion here too, but lets say "the Codex" as it invariably strikes the eye of the casual observer) is simply limited to what you call the "dialogue RPG" for some, to Fallout (as interesting as it may be to define a genre by a single game). Other qualities are usually dismissed as superficial and any further trend away from complexity, dialogue and non-linearity is a cardinal sin, that fuels the desperate anger at the slwo dying of this (sub-)genre . It also leads to an interestin focus that places trends above the actual individual reality of the game, which is why you will find a better press on Gothic3 here than on Oblivion, although the games actually seem to converge at the same gameplay, but coming from different sides of the spectrum. I have slowly come to see the good in this, while I still disagree on the final verdict some of the actual criticism raised is at its core valid.

Whats annoying is merely the tone of voice raised against anyone who enjoys different kinds of gameplay.

 

[yipsl]

Never the less, in this world increasingly devoid of cRPGs of any depth, I see people complaining about the one game that can put the genre back on the map. In a time when people should be rejoicing over *not only* the release of a fairly in-depth cRPG, but the mainstream gaming media‘s attention to a genre normally spurned, I see page after page of people viciously attacking Bethesda and their work – presumably as a threat to something I can’t understand. Can you help me understand it?

I've been mildy critical of many of the changes made to the series, but I won't bash Oblivion. Even without the CS, it's one of the three single player RPGs coming out in 2006. It's the only one of the three where you aren't given their character to roleplay and it's the only one with a CS. I don't expect a CS out of The Witcher and the Gothic series hasn't had one either.

As far as it goes, I expect Oblivion to be truer to TES than Fallout 3 will be to that series. If you think there's frothing at the mouth here over Oblivion, wait till Fallout's announced and MSFD is posting explanations and a defense of Bethsoft's design decisions.

Bethsoft isn't EA, but you'd think it was because it's become the company that too many people hate where RPGs are concerned. So far, Oblivion is looking to be a good action RPG, but when it's finished, with mods (both official and fan made) and commercial expansions, then I think it will be a great RPG.

Does anyone get the impression the TES forum "elite" had a secret meeting and elected their best Warrior to come tame the Codex Heathens?

This thread has now evolved into entertainment, in my oh-so humble, yet worthless opinion. :D

-D4

I don't think so, the Codex would have been inconsequential on the official boards if MSFD didn't post information here that's not been available there. Many newer fans need to be educated about what TES is really about and criticism of the mainstream fanboys is valid. Yet, RPG as "ranting pornographic grumbling" is what the Codex is getting known for on several boards. Free speech and opinions are all well and good, but if you can't defend your choice of what constitutes an RPG, but just engage in ad hominem attacks, then no one will take you seriously.

In a sense, I'm caught in the middle, I'm too old school for the devs and the official boards and too reasonable about Oblivion for the Codex. That's why I've started posting at Blood and Shadows, especially since I play hybrid characters based on acrobats, healers and mages.

 

[Twinfalls]

the definition of RPG at "the Codex" is simply limited to what you call the "dialogue RPG" for some, to Fallout (as interesting as it may be to define a genre by a single game). Other qualities are usually dismissed as superficial and any further trend away from complexity, dialogue and non-linearity is a cardinal sin, that fuels the desperate anger at the slwo dying of this (sub-)genre .

No. The generally desired characteristics here are

1. real choices (which entail real consequences, and hence limitations),
2. the facilitation of character development beyond mere powering up,
3. character skills rather than player skills deciding outcomes, and
4. Non-linearity in how the story or stories can be progressed through.

Good, sophisticated dialogue and story is also desirable, and why shouldn't it be? But that isn't the end-all of a good RPG.

It also leads to an interestin focus that places trends above the actual individual reality of the game, which is why you will find a better press on Gothic3 here than on Oblivion, although the games actually seem to converge at the same gameplay, but coming from different sides of the spectrum.

Gothic 3 seems likely to have critical differences to Oblivion:

1. Gothic 3 will have real choices presented to the player. You will not be able to join and simultaneously head all factions, unlike Oblivion.

2. It is very likely to have high-quality NPC behaviour and reactive social environments, given these were present previously,

3. Gothic games just fucking rock compared to the bore-fest that was Morrowind, Oblivion's only real predecessor, face it.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I didn't read all the replies, so excuse me if these points had already been made

Never the less, in this world increasingly devoid of cRPGs of any depth, I see people complaining about the one game that can put the genre back on the map.

No. It would take an RPG to put the RPG genre back on the map. An action game with stats like Fable or Oblivion would only bring more games like Fable and Oblivion. That's just how those things work.

In a time when people should be rejoicing over *not only* the release of a fairly in-depth cRPG

Failry in-depth what? What Oblivion features deserve such a title? Graphics? Soil erosion? Virtual forests?

I see page after page of people viciously attacking Bethesda and their work

Viciosly attacking is a phrase better attributed to Bethesda fanboys when they visit the Codex. We criticize, explain, and discuss. Perhaps, that's why MSFD is a welcome guest here.

Can you help me understand it?

If after reading our criticism and, I assume, the 2005 article you still didn't get it, odds are we won't be able to help you.

This doesn’t make me happy either – but the changes appear minimal at worst.

You are surely jesting with us. The list of negative changes is miles long. It's much easier to say what's left than to list what's gone.

The AI, which needs to be seen to be truly appreciated

You mean the scheduler? It's not AI, I hope you realize that.

The depth in ...character developmental options dwarf the majority of the single player cRPG experiences released in the last few years (based on original IPs)

Depth? Dwarf? Majority? If you want to be taken seriously, please avoid bullshit in the future.

 

[Vault Dweller]

<snip>

What Twinfalls said

 

[HardCode]

I've flittered through these forums ...

Welcome to the Codex! Feel free to post all of your thoughts HERE.

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

the definition of RPG at "the Codex" is simply limited to what you call the "dialogue RPG" for some, to Fallout (as interesting as it may be to define a genre by a single game). Other qualities are usually dismissed as superficial and any further trend away from complexity, dialogue and non-linearity is a cardinal sin, that fuels the desperate anger at the slwo dying of this (sub-)genre .

No. The generally desired characteristics here are

1. real choices (which entail real consequences, and hence limitations),
2. the facilitation of character development beyond mere powering up,
3. character skills rather than player skills deciding outcomes, and
4. Non-linearity in how the story or stories can be progressed through.

Good, sophisticated dialogue and story is also desirable, and why shouldn't it be? But that isn't the end-all of a good RPG.

I summed most of that up under complexity, but thanks for putting it a little clearer. I will save it for later

It also leads to an interestin focus that places trends above the actual individual reality of the game, which is why you will find a better press on Gothic3 here than on Oblivion, although the games actually seem to converge at the same gameplay, but coming from different sides of the spectrum.

Gothic 3 seems likely to have critical differences to Oblivion:

1. Gothic 3 will have real choices presented to the player. You will not be able to join and simultaneously head all factions, unlike Oblivion.

2. It is very likely to have high-quality NPC behaviour and reactive social environments, given these were present previously,

3. Gothic games just fucking rock compared to the bore-fest that was Morrowind, Oblivion's only real predecessor, face it.

Do we really want to have that discussion again? I would reply that

1) Gothic still has critical weaknesses in other key areas: A fixed main character and a weak skill/character progression system. The real choices in gothic with regard to the guilds were also the only way it did character customization.

2) Oblivion seems very likely to have the same level of NPC behavior

3) Sure it rocks, but its not much of a RPG - I thought that was the cardinal sin. Same for the much loved Daggerfall, BTW.

 

[kris]

No. The generally desired characteristics here are

1. real choices (which entail real consequences, and hence limitations),
2. the facilitation of character development beyond mere powering up,
3. character skills rather than player skills deciding outcomes, and
4. Non-linearity in how the story or stories can be progressed through.

Good, sophisticated dialogue and story is also desirable, and why shouldn't it be? But that isn't the end-all of a good RPG.

He got it!!!111 Surely the points I are most likely to argue around about and have discussed the most. No1 and No2 should be tied up as that who the character is and have become is a choice with a consequence (you are evil! ). Yeah yeah I know preferably a bit more advanced than that.

 

[Pr()ZaC]

3. Gothic games just fucking rock compared to the bore-fest that was Morrowind, Oblivion's only real predecessor, face it.

True that + playing Gothic II GOLD at the moment.
Heck, even Ultima VII and Daggerfall AI kicked Morrowind nuts.

 

[Lumpy]

someone fucking retardo these for fucks sakes

For once, I agree with Twinfalls.
If you read the site, how come you missed the other threads that are exactly like yours, and dumb anyway?

 

[Section8]

As far as it goes, I expect Oblivion to be truer to TES than Fallout 3 will be to that series. If you think there's frothing at the mouth here over Oblivion, wait till Fallout's announced and MSFD is posting explanations and a defense of Bethsoft's design decisions.

You're very right, that's going to be a whole new kind of shitfest. Interplay's internal FOBOS forums got so far beyond anything moderable that they simply closed them. When Fallout 3 gets into full swing, they might just have to shut down the whole internet.

Bethsoft isn't EA, but you'd think it was because it's become the company that too many people hate where RPGs are concerned. So far, Oblivion is looking to be a good action RPG, but when it's finished, with mods (both official and fan made) and commercial expansions, then I think it will be a great RPG.

They're certainly not doing themselves any favours. Between the PR that is both ham and iron fisted, the shameless adoption of an entirely different demographic and the hunger for profits all add up to a fairly unlikable image. If it wasn't for folks like MSFD and Kathode actually putting a human face on a rampaging corporate beast, Bethesda would be pretty much on par with the Evil Empire.

Going back to your previous post, it's going to be very interesting when Fallout and it's raving fanbase get the same cold shoulder the Elder Scrolls fans are getting now. At least Oblivion is pretty comparable to the previous title in the series, but I can't see Fallout 3 bearing much similarity to the original duo.

guys, you have to understand that you are whacky enough to be interesting to rest of the world, so you will have to learn to deal with people coming over out of mere curiosity and you are not kidding me: you enjoy the attention and the opportunity to flaunt you opinions

Well, I guess it functions as a kind of filter. "This is the sort of vitriol and abuse that goes on here, amid even the more civil discussions, so if you can handle it..."

But, the assumption that everyone is a fanboy from the Elder Scrolls forum is a bit misled. Rhapsody's first post had six paragraphs. The "invader" types from the Elder Scrolls forums can barely string six words together. And if you must pass judgment, maybe "degree of literacy" is a more appropriate basis to make it on, since we have quite a few intelligent and intelligible folks here from the Elder Scrolls forums.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I don't see how any change announced makes the game look less of an RPG than Morrowind or Daggerfall. Not all RPGs have dialog options like Fallout.. (just the REALLY kick ass ones ).

I hate to explain things all over again, especially to people who claim that they've read the discussions, but you are trying to argue, so God fucking bless you for that.

The difference between DF and OB (short version)

DF had very deep character system with many diverse skills that supported different chartacter builds: a thief who climbs walls, backstabs, does critical strikes, etc - all those skills are now gone; a mage who levitates over obstacles - gone, a Conan-like fighter who doesn't rely on magic at all - climbing again, medicine for healing (no spells, no potions), swimming (great mechanics, btw) - gone, explorer who speaks creatures languages - gone, etc. Most of the alternatives in skills have been removed.

Advantages/disadvantages, both for the character system and crafting. Needless to say, it's a great way to keep powerful items in check, and create unique characters with role-playing in mind (weakness in holy places, fast healing, using only leather armor for thieves, etc)

Truckload of guilds (more than 30), witch covens, vamps, werewolves, etc

Well done random quests catering to different characters and role-playing, plus an option to decline a quest at minor advancement penalty.

Great dungeon design - walls and shafts to climb, open areas to levitate, switches, multiple routes, pits to jump over, atmosphere, etc.

Horses, carriages, banking, houses & ships to buy, mark & recall, HUGE world, etc.

Then Darkunderlord said: The same way Diablo did? That spawned a whole swath of Action-RPGs. What would a first person, actiony combat RPG with no actual PC dialogue spawn?

You really think Oblivion and Diablo are even in the same league? You know that's a piss poor argument, and I know you know why.

How's your reading comprehension?

I'm not saying "eat your shit and enjoy" (to quote feta ) - I'm saying you might want to support a fellow team of people dedicated to putting out games that are still at least 60% RPG in the traditional sense.

Then what? You might want to support games with at least 50, 40, 25, common, guys, this game has stats, you do remember stats, don't you?

Personally, I feel Bethesda is 80% old school - inspite of the fact they're no Black Isle or Troika.

They used to be old school when they made DF the way they fucking wanted. Then there was MW and the joy of discovering the console market and idiots who will buy anything pretty.

Let me say this, ten years ago I sounded just like you ...

Oh, no, not "I was once like you but then I saw the light..." bullshit

Final Fantasy IS an RPG, it focuses on Story.
Fallout IS an RPG, it focuses on Dialog.
TES ARE RPGs, they focus on Character Development.
(and, grudgingly, I could say Diablo was an RPG, it focused on Action).

And Quake is an awesome RPG, it focuses on killing, and you play the role of that marine...

I can understand your desire for another Dialog rpg to arise (Arcanum was the last I played), but the fact another rare beast calling itself RPG isn't 100% of this breed isn't any reason to castigate it.

We have a desire for an RPG of any kind. We just don't consider Oblivion to be one, based on what we know at this point.

 

[Whipporowill]

I wouldn't be surpised if MSFD is going to be involved in Fo3 in some capacity and in his and Beth's best interest been hanging around building at least some sort of credibilty around here. Not saying that's the whole truth, or the truth at all - he might just like us, however unlikely that might be.

For a probable prophecy of what will occurr when Beth start releasing info on Fo3 - check my old Eyesores.

 

[galsiah]

most people here aren't fans of the "level up every skill until you're uber and can do everything", "it looks pretty" and "Patrick Stewart!" approach to RPGs which Bethesda takes. It really is that simple.

Wait.. what stops you from merely not leveling up every skill? It's very possible to beat any RPG without maxing, even morrowind - just stick to the main quest. WHen you beat it, looks like you can relax in accomplishment. You don't have o keep exploring every isle on the map. Should the game be penalized because it gives you to much freedom to sandbox?

Roleplaying is not (as so many seem to think):
"Making sure to stick to the stereo-typical traditional role of your class."
It is:
"Getting into the character and role of your character and acting as he would."
Most characters in any world will improve any skill that's useful to them whenever they can. Roleplaying a character with any pragmatism in Morrowind's world involves roleplaying according to Morrowind's (stupid) rules.
Would a fighter learn magic? Sure he would - he can get just as good as a born mage without much trouble at all.
Would a character structure his skill increases to maximize his attributes? Yes - if he realized that learning skills in one order tended to make him stronger and faster... than in another order, why wouldn't he do it?
Morrowind's absurd "everyone can do everything" model, combined with a counterintuitive, transparently order dependent skill/attribute increase scheme, means that every pragmatic character would end up gaining in every skill and jumping through hoops to gain attribute points: because that is the way the world works for him. It's stupid, but that's the kind of idiocy Morrowind's rules encourage.

To play Morrowind (without mods) and stick to some traditional character I have to play an oddball: a fighter who fears all magic, a priest who won't ever use a weapon... That's fine, but if I want to play a less extreme "character" I am pushed towards a master of all trades situation - if I roleplay -, since most character's I play are not idiots and are pragmatic.

TES ARE RPGs, they focus on Character Development.

Morrowind did not focus on "character development" - it focused on skill gain and stat maxing. The two are very different. After playing for ages in Morrowind your "character" loses character, as he heads towards becoming superman. Character development would imply that your character became more interesting through the game. This is just not true.
The only way to get good stat based character progression in Morrowind (while roleplaying) is to play an oddball character. Any normal character - whether he starts as a fighter, athief or a mage - will eventually become boring.

There is no character development through stats in Morrowind - nothing to give your character any sense of uniqueness. Take that away and what are you left with? The only RPG aspect Morrowind does well is exploration of a rich environment.

That's great, but it doesn't make it a good RPG.
Morrowind has:
Lifeless, choiceless, dialogue (95% of the time).
Nearly all linear quests - with a few right/wrong decisions.
A skill/stat increase system that encourages min/maxing, takes an interesting starting character and spits out superman.
A rich and expansive game world to be explored.

On balance that doesn't make me want to celebrate. Oblivion will have to be much better in many respects to be called a good RPG.
Oblivion might have:
Slightly better dialogue (if MSFD is not leading us astray).
Slightly more quest choice. (maybe)
A rich and expansive game world to be explored.
Better gameplay for different character types (perhaps allowing mages to be mages, and fighters to be fighters).
A less broken skill/stat system, but still one founded on the basis of "Everyone can max out everything" which is plain stupid.

 

[Mefi]

You speak as if the industry has a choice in where their rpg titles come from. You have a point regarding the Maddens, GTAs or DOAs of the world. These properties can breed little bunny-rat clones at phenomenal rates. I'd put my money on the superficial
and quick nature of their gameplay as why ( not to say some of them couldn't be fun, however).

RPGs, on the other-hand, are expansive - not just in physical square-mileage but also in story scope, history, item design, or some other level. Only action RPGs (like the console Baldur's Gate titles) have ever felt hollow or shallow. These titles, although tenuously connected to the genre, wouldn't stem a real market demand for RPGs if such an outcry could happen in America (I won't speak for the rest of you guys ).

My point? Well, any cRPGs I've disliked in the past 7 years has been disliked on merits of aesthetics and never on feelings of redundancy. It's not your average developer that can be entice to slave those sleepless hours needed to make even the most basic (non-action) cRPG.

The 90s cRPG craze boomed into life on the financial success of Baldur's Gate and closed when developers stopped feeding the demand - not because of market was saturation with poor titles. Why this occurred could be a decent thread in-and-of itself.

I hear you, mate. It's a possible problem, and was a very real one back in the Bard's Tale 2 days - but I think the technical constraints of doing what the market demands of cRPGs (20+ average hours, enough items and creatures to fill those play requirements ) is enough to keep those not dedicated to it at bay.

It's not how the market works. Look at how Bethesda went about revising what their marketing told them was wrong with Morrowind. It's a constant dumbing down effect to appeal to the widest possible market. Can't find a quest NPC? Teleport there immediately is the solution. Don't want to read? Solved by cutting down even further on any meaningful dialogue interaction. Want to be everything? We'll let you max out all your skills and complete every quest so that nothing you do has a consequence.

Morrowind did not encourage other developers to create role-playing games. It told other developers that an action game with stats was the way forward.

Before we go any further, why was Morrowind a bad cRPG? For you, I mean.

Lack of consequences for actions, lack of dialogue which either developed character or presented alternative solutions, poor system for character creation, plot so linear it ran in a perfectly straight line, munchkinism etc etc.

I can agree that Morrowind has its flaws, and gets boring at times - but that pacing isn't necessarily bad just dated. I actually give them points for having the balls to put something like that out. That's like Hollywood putting out a direct film adaptation of a Dostoevsky novel. Actually, the hollywood analogy is quite fitting: Morrowind played on my senses like a decent 70s or 60s film - the pacing is slow, and it sometimes feel painful for that fact, but ultimately the quality is rewarding (think Deerhunter, or any other drama from that period).

The pacing meant nothing to me. It wasn't on my list of flaws for the game. I'm quite willing to play a game that develops slowly. The boredom for me came from ultimately not having any choices with consequences to make.

Also, how far did you play into Morrowind?

With vanilla: Two complete runthroughs on Xbox (second with bloodmoon and tribunal expansion version), one on PC (and by complete I mean, hunt in every corner and visit every quest NPC). Why did I do this 3 times with a game I didn't think much of? Because I wanted to see whether I had missed something in why I didn't like it. But beyond the exploration, Morrowind is just a pretty shell.

That's just it, isn't it? "Good roleplaying" is another one of these cultural buzz words, like 'next gen', that everybody accuses everybody else of not understand - but only because we each have our own subjective definition of it. That begs the question:

What makes good roleplaying for you?

Good roleplaying or a good crpg? In any case, I mentioned some of the points above.

I spoke to a bloke on another forum earlier today and I'd like to reprint his words in lue of my own:

"You know what?

I liked the imaginary dream world Morrowind created. The game wasn't much of a game at all. What we all purchased and enjoyed was a tool for the imagination. It was a block of wood and a carving knife wrapped in a DVD package with a price tag of $50. I liked the fact that I could create my own adventure."

Morrowind was what you made of it, much like a gold box SSI title, Bards Tale, Wizardy, etc.

Kind of agree. Except that every time you try to make your own adventure you still ended up with the exact same results every time. Or if by creating your own adventure you mean the mods, sure, but that isn't the game you buy.

What I've seen looked pretty vicious. Far less civil than what we're having.

I agree that one must discuss, but no game will embody a real pinnical of perfection (my tongue was firmly in cheek with my Fallout rant above). Criticism is one thing, but attacking it is another. My point is the community is undercutting itself by not supporting something that is at least 60% more of a RPG than 99% of the titles released. You have noticed we're in quite the drought at the moment?

I've noticed that developers have forgotten what makes a good RPG. Have a look through most of the criticisms of Oblivion and you will see the same points raised again and again. Get past the "omg they swear and insult each other" reaction and have a look at the arguments which are articulated. Supporting does not mean swallowing shit and claiming it tastes nice.

 

[Sycandre]

I'm a long TES fan, and I'll buy Oblivion, because I think it features enought interesting elements (among which the CS and the modding community) to be a quite interesting game.

But, I think RPG, as any games, are here to test you, to challenge you. I'm not waiting from such a game to test my reflexe, not my interface mastery handling. I hope a RPG to test my imagination, my deductiveness, my sense of tactics... globally, my brain.

And what do we have? If we looked at MW, there was not a single investigation challenge. You were always guided step by step and told what was the next task to do, NPC to meet, place to visit. We didn't had to have those ideas ourself. This was absolutely not challenging from a RPG point of view.

Oblivion is said to have corrected some MW problems... among which how hard it was for some gamers to understand what they had to do in their quests!!! That is, though Oblivion appears to have more colored quests than MW Fedex ones, those quests will probably be even less challenging from the RPG point of view than MW ones.

I would like to figure out myself who might have the infos I need. I'd like to imagine where I have to search next. Those are simple investigation challenges, but if a RPG miss them, where is the challenge? in the new visceral combat system?

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

Rhapsody, I won't even bother discussing rpg stuff (other than to say that jRPGs are not RPGs).

The Indians lost because they were living in the stone age. Stone age always loses to people with guns.

Private sector labor union membership has been on a steady decline while wages and benefits have been increasing. Labor unions now have their greatest strength in the public sector (where they used to be illegal) because they are a losing strategy in the market and have to thrive by stealing from the people.

For an analysis of how the "unity" and "solidarity" benefitted African Americans in the 60s I highly reccommend that you read Thomas Sowell's "Black Rednecks and White Liberals".

I would sooner throw away all my RPGs than express solidarity with "raver culture". You can keep dreaming the dream for your oppressed minority or whatever, but you just come off sounding like an idiot.

 

[MINIGUNWIELDER]

Final Fantasy IS an RPG, it focuses on Story.
Fallout IS an RPG, it focuses on Dialog.
TES ARE RPGs, they focus on Character Development.
(and, grudgingly, I could say Diablo was an RPG, it focused on Action)

final fantasy dosent focus on roleplaying it just has stats and the stories however well written(earlier ones had this down pat) dont immerse you and dont have any diverging paths

there fore it is an rpg LITE

fallout focuses on roleplaying/character specialization

TES focuses on combat the earlier two games had a depth of roleplaying options and dialog trees the later two being the opposite of what an rpg is

diablo wasnt an rpg there was no roleplaying

 

[Trash]

Yeah baby, I'm hardcore.

Because me and my rig are so fucking old skool that even loading a screenshot will take at least 10 seconds?

 

[franc kaos]

Oblivion is said to have corrected some MW problems... among which how hard it was for some gamers to understand what they had to do in their quests!!! That is, though Oblivion appears to have more colored quests than MW Fedex ones, those quests will probably be even less challenging from the RPG point of view than MW ones.

So, we've got the focus group who couldn't find Caius and says To Hit rolls are stupid, the Tod says there will be more hand holding and compass pointing and 'kinetic' fighting, then MSFD says how complex the new quest lines are, so my question would be; how can you have more complexity whilst removing the need for the player to think?

 

[damaged_drone]

this site does seem to parody minor religious sects and their somewhat self-inflicted obscurity. can anyone direct me to the rpg development success stories inspired by this codexian idealism?