I don't understand what you are saying, what's a Herve Caen?
Herve Caen was the CEO (?) of Titus and later Interplay when it was acquired. Regardless of what he himself is directly responsible for, he was the man at the helm when Interplay took it's big tumble.
So in short, he's saying that if Fallout's combat is "flawed," then Morrowinds is the very epitome of "utterly flawed in every way." Or something such.
From memory morrowind did; ill admit that the main quest was relatively a straight line but the numerous side quests could be completed in a number of fashions. Steal something for the thieves guild could piss off certain people within the game. The whole issue with the fighter's guild log (charter?) that the thieves guild wanted; completing that quest would prevent you from being in the fighters guild. That seems like a choice just not one in dialogue.
Okay, to be fair, I do tend to discount the few choices that were interesting or at least halfway so, because they're a clear minority, but you're right. Morrowind does have moments where choices have consequences.
However, the majority of the game had little in the way of actual choice. For instance, being a Morag Tong assassin was more about having the ability to kill someone than to be clandestine about it, so basically the requirement was something every character was required to have for the rest of the game anyway.
There's more evidence of choices that
should have mattered, but didn't. Like being a member of both House Telvanni and the Mages Guild. Or going near anyone while infected with Corprus.
And, some of us also take issue with the very attitude of the developers that all players should be able to accomplish everything. But, I will concede that Morrowind wasn't entirely devoid of consequence. Sadly, all portents point to Oblivion having even less in the way of meaningful consequence.
Again you are missing my point: some random person created Mario not you, you can pretend you are mario and that's fine if it is your thing but it was not created by you so
It's not as though Mario has any kind of deep personality or backstory that I can't override with my own imagination. That was my original point. But...
you cannot relate to that character as you could if you created it in your image. If you cannot understand this concept then my earlier statement of talking in your mind when in dialogue with someone would not be understood.
I certainly agree with this, but it's the fact that I can't
project that image that troubles me. Thus, it makes the relation to my character no more relevant than if I play Mario with my own image of what his personality is like.
So by definition a game which has a good, evil, neutral and joke response in a dialogue sequences is a rpg and yet a game which allows you to create a character and interact with the world as you see fit, finish the majority of side quests as you see fit is not. Maybe this issue here is what defines an rpg?
That's about the gist of it. If Morrowind were a P&P session, it would be all die rolls and no speaking, other than the DM quoting passages from the rulebooks. For me, the most important part of role-playing is the act of
evoking the character I've imagined.
Like the thespian, I seek an audience for my dramatics. Now ideally, that's fellow human beings who are also playing their own role. But, failing that, a responsive computer driven emulation of that is almost as good. If it doesn't respond in any meaningful way, then I'm better off just daydreaming without a computer in front of me. Or committing my imagination to sharable media.
For instance,
a bit of Morrowind roleplay. But did I need the game for that, or did I just use online reference?
Now, as far as "good, evil, neutral and joke response", that's a fairly absolutist example. It's the sort of thing you see in Bioware games, and I'm not a fan of them either.
Dialogue trees aren't perfect, certainly, because they are by their very nature, putting words in my mouth. But, they're elegant in their function. Obviously, I can't always find the exact response I'm after, but if they're well written, I can usually find something that fits pretty close to the tone and vernacular I'd use.
Then, you have something that has a semblence of actual conversation, rather than a completely abstracted system of keywords and functions. And that, I believe is worth the tradeoff of "putting words in my mouth."
It also permits variable responses and consequences from NPCs in reply. Like Lumpy's example:
"Greetings, lady. Any news today?" and "Hey, bitch! Tell me what the news are or I'll kill you".
With dialogue trees, it's a simple matter of selecting between those two choices for a drastically different tone.
If you try and abstract that into Morrowind terms, then the difference between one and the other is
manually and willfully manipulating the persuasion system contrary to the game systems, and then hoping the topic actually has varied responses based on standing. That's utterly contrived, not a reasonable facsimile of a social interaction. Resorting to my own imagination to "fill in the blanks" is a direct result of the game failing to deliver, and I honestly don't think it's in any way different than making believe a crash to desktop hadn't just occured. You're compensating for the inadequacy of the developer to fulfil your desires.
Skills had tiers of usefulness; you had certain skills that allowed the game to be much easier for you than others. Try a game by tagging Doctor, repair and science and let us know how you go.
True enough, but among let's say Tier 1 (the most useful skills) there's a great deal of variety. Firearms and Melee are quite differentiated, despite falling under the blanket of combat skills. Sneak offers an altogether different game dynamic, and so does Speech.
Would you agree that provided the player picks at least one primarily useful skill, it possible to create dramatically different but equally viable character builds? Also, why should all types of character be equal in difficulty? It's the fact that character choice can greatly alter the game experience you will have with Fallout that makes it an absolute gem.
Traits - who here has never taken gifted?
Another one I agree with. The traits were altogether unbalanced, but at least most of them have the intention of altering your character through advantages and drawbacks as a point of differentiation.
Combat - why does it take 5AP to pull a trigger?
That's scraping the barrel though. It's like saying "why can a knight only move three steps forward and one to the side?" It's a game rule, and realistic or not it works well enough.
Lets be clear here I love Fallout 1 and 2 but it is not the God among games of rpgs. Rose colored glasses and all that.
And here's where we really disagree. For me, Fallout is the real deal. I can comfortably acknowledge that despite some failings it's a superb game, and an even better RPG. Fallout 2 I have a slightly lesser opinion of, but it's still excellent in it's own right.
If Morrowind/Oblivion is not an RPG more of a google world search thingy why oh why is information/news being constantly posted about it on a rpg website? Could it possibly be a rpg that just doesn't have what you like as a dialogue interface?
The Codex also covers games like Fable. Basically anything with the <s>audacity</s> <s>nerve</s> willingness to call itself a RPG with a significant single player component, released on the PC, is fair game for the Codex.
[edit] Also, there's a lot of disdain for what we perceive as "failed potential" in the Elder Scrolls games. I know many people here would want nothing more than a technological update to Daggerfall's ambitious design principles.
Anyway, if you're willing to stick around, you'll find that there's a lot of history in these forums, with discussion of everything and anything RPG related. There's arguments about the "true" definitions, there's countless posts about innovation and ideas within the genre. You name it, and it's here somewhere hidden among the vitriol and goatse.cx.
