Why do people hate Oblivion so much?

[Squid]

What's with this thread and absolutely retarded takes. First I someone thinks that more copies of the same tree in a game = more disk space usage, now there's someone who thinks that level scaling is somehow the same thing as predefined enemy placement.

You can't make this shit up. Comedy gold.

The title is "Why do people hate Oblivion so much?" and it's posted by mfkndggrfll so I guess you could really piece together what kind of thread this would have been from the original post.

 

[grim1234]

The title is "Why do people hate Oblivion so much?" and it's posted by mfkndggrfll so I guess you could really piece together what kind of thread this would have been from the original post.

True.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

Human intellectual capacity isn't quite where yet? We're the smartest thing we know of!

We're the smartest, but fast forward XXXX years, and we may be considered extremely stupid. What I mean is that we're still held back by parts of our brain that literally makes us act retarded.

Although maybe I'm wrong, since we are capable of thinking of literally everything due to our ability to understand the concept of language. But dunno, since evolution is a thing, and we're becoming more and more "intelectual beings" (we're sitting behind screens and doing nothing but overthinking, etc, etc), then maybe some day our brains will change in such a way that we will no longer feel emotions and just use our intellect. This is all just theories of someone who has the most basic knowledge of how this shit works, so, I'm just having fun theorizing more than anything.

Well evolution isn't based on what's convenient or what works well, it's based on all the things that didn't result in death or lack of reproduction. So until people start dying en masse and/or not being able to find romantic partners to reproduce with due to too much/not enough emotionalism, there's no evolutionary pressure to change either way.

Humans could be said to be de-evolving, in a sense, because we are much less likely to die due to being unfit than our ancestors. So we've lost a lot of evolutionary pressures, meaning we're got more detrimental mutations in our gene pool now because our society is safe enough for people with those detrimental mutations to survive and reproduce.

Yes, because "theory" actually means what the greenies make it to mean in current year and is not a clearly defined term in science.
Oh, and "consensus = science" is obviously true because woketard cunts believe it is.
It is obvious that you are no scientist.

What in the name of fuck are you talking about? Suddenly you're going on about science and theories? Did your brain just crash and reboot? If you'll remember, you were failing badly at trying to convince people that the term "level scaling" means anything other than "Game content scales to your level", and in fact means something more like "Basic game design". No new retarded arguments until the old one is finished. There are starving children in africa who could eat for a week just off the scraps of your retarded arguments.

 

[Falksi]

 

[Cael]

What in the name of fuck are you talking about? Suddenly you're going on about science and theories? Did your brain just crash and reboot? If you'll remember, you were failing badly at trying to convince people that the term "level scaling" means anything other than "Game content scales to your level", and in fact means something more like "Basic game design". No new retarded arguments until the old one is finished. There are starving children in africa who could eat for a week just off the scraps of your retarded arguments.

The fact that you don't see why it is tied to science when the very post you quoted before explains why it is tied to science is why you are a proven retard.

QED.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

What in the name of fuck are you talking about? Suddenly you're going on about science and theories? Did your brain just crash and reboot? If you'll remember, you were failing badly at trying to convince people that the term "level scaling" means anything other than "Game content scales to your level", and in fact means something more like "Basic game design". No new retarded arguments until the old one is finished. There are starving children in africa who could eat for a week just off the scraps of your retarded arguments.

The fact that you don't see why it is tied to science when the very post you quoted before explains why it is tied to science is why you are a proven retard.

QED.

So the reason people hate Oblivion is because if you try to talk about it, a wild retard will appear and jabber at them about nonsense? Damn, you were on topic the entire time and I missed it.

 

[samuraigaiden]

Oblivion is objectively bad but subjectively good and most people can't deal with that.

 

[Corbin Dallas Multipass]

Oblivion is objectively bad but subjectively good and most people can't deal with that.

This is an objectively bad take, and an objectively wrong use of the word objectively.

 

[Cael]

What in the name of fuck are you talking about? Suddenly you're going on about science and theories? Did your brain just crash and reboot? If you'll remember, you were failing badly at trying to convince people that the term "level scaling" means anything other than "Game content scales to your level", and in fact means something more like "Basic game design". No new retarded arguments until the old one is finished. There are starving children in africa who could eat for a week just off the scraps of your retarded arguments.

The fact that you don't see why it is tied to science when the very post you quoted before explains why it is tied to science is why you are a proven retard.

QED.

So the reason people hate Oblivion is because if you try to talk about it, a wild retard will appear and jabber at them about nonsense? Damn, you were on topic the entire time and I missed it.

Ah, yes. Throwing smoke everywhere and shifting goalposts because you were caught out being wrong. The mental process of a typical Oblivion-lover folks!

 

[perfectslumbers]

Oblivion is the worst Elder Scrolls game. The leveling and scaling was retarded. The gameplay is "better," than Morrowind in that you don't sit there attacking and missing but in Morrowind you became genuinely powerful and feel the sense of progression that's core to rpgs. Oblivion is just a horrible monotonous grind where you go into an interchangeable dungeon and fight the enemies that are the exact same at level 1 as at level 30 and then walk through the boring wall of green bloom to return the quest. Sure it had better quests and writing than Skyrim but that's the wrong strength to have in a massive open world game. Skyrim is less bland and more varied which is much more important in a larping game than Sean Beans dialogue.

 

[Hafnar the Jester]

Whoever does not miss Oblivion has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.

 

[Sigourn]

I don't hate Oblivion.
But if someone where to ask me, "what's the one RPG that you feel zero interest in playing?", then Oblivion is right there.

I have a long list of games I'll possibly never, ever, in my life even get to touch. An as an impossible list that is, Oblivion isn't even there because I just don't care for it. I've had enough of Bethesda games already, and I know that you need to mod them to hell and back to iron out their glaring flaws, even the best of them (Morrowind, and New Vegas as a Bethesda product). I don't want to put myself through that again.

 

[Hafnar the Jester]

I don't hate Oblivion.
But if someone where to ask me, "what's the one RPG that you feel zero interest in playing?", then Oblivion is right there.

I have a long list of games I'll possibly never, ever, in my life even get to touch. An as an impossible list that is, Oblivion isn't even there because I just don't care for it. I've had enough of Bethesda games already, and I know that you need to mod them to hell and back to iron out their glaring flaws, even the best of them (Morrowind, and New Vegas as a Bethesda product). I don't want to put myself through that again.

Oblivion is the worst Elder Scrolls game. The leveling and scaling was retarded. The gameplay is "better," than Morrowind in that you don't sit there attacking and missing but in Morrowind you became genuinely powerful and feel the sense of progression that's core to rpgs. Oblivion is just a horrible monotonous grind where you go into an interchangeable dungeon and fight the enemies that are the exact same at level 1 as at level 30 and then walk through the boring wall of green bloom to return the quest. Sure it had better quests and writing than Skyrim but that's the wrong strength to have in a massive open world game. Skyrim is less bland and more varied which is much more important in a larping game than Sean Beans dialogue.

To do what it does best, Oblivion requires no mods. It's just a charming hiking simulator. Anyone who treated seriously the levelling system and was somehow "grinding it" - got trolled hard. Oblivion is like some Ed Greenwood novel you found randomly in a dustbin at a goodwill. It's retarded, but really really cute.

The only Bethesda products that demand mods are New Vegas and Morrowind. They rest of the games are fucked up beyond repair. Unless installing ultrarealistikk anime diddies for your Skyrim/F4 playthrough makes it more bearable?

 

[Assisted Living Godzilla]

Oblivion is better than Skyrim. Oblivion isn't good, but it's better than fucking Skyrim.

Oblivion was also more interesting for the time it came out than Skyrim was. The combat in Skyrim seemed like a step down too, and combat in Oblivion isn't good, but combat getting worse isn't what you want when you've essentially turned your series into a open world hack & slash. The loss of the leveling system really fucking hurt Skyrim, at least with how they went about it, because it just made everything else feel so minor. They also somehow fucked up ripping off BioShocks Plasmids... both in feel and aesthetics.

 

[notpl]

Because it's very bad, OP.

 

[Bad Sector]

Oblivion is better than Skyrim. Oblivion isn't good, but it's better than fucking Skyrim.

IMO Skyrim is better than Oblivion if for no other reason (and tbh there are other reasons) than it doesn't fail to do what even the most distant relatives of games considering the thought of perhaps pretending to be RPGs accidentally do: NOT penalizing you for leveling up.

 

[youhomofo]

Morrowind was unique and interesting. Oblivion was just another cookie cutter fantasy setting.

Morrowind had handcrafted locations and enemy placement. Oblivion was chock full of generated dungeons and level scaling enemies.

I'd rather play a smaller game with more meaning and purpose than a giant sprawling mess of generic dungeons full of generic enemies.

Morrowind had its faults for sure. But it was the last Bethesda game before the bloated trash and emptiness that came after.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

average morrowind dungeon

average oblivion dungeon

 

[Sykar]

Is not level scaling in the sense most people refer to it. In Oblivion certain enemies might start at level 20 and only scale to level 40 or start at 1 and end at 10. That's the idea. So yeah, the devs wouldn't put a base level 20 in your path while you're likely under level 10. They'd use the enemies that scale from level 1 to 10 instead. Sometimes trash mobs get thrown in and whatnot because of course they do so you'd still encounter things that only scaled to a lower threshold.

I don't care what most people call something. As a scientist and an engineer, the consensus argument means nothing to me.

As the guy above you posted, "Level scaling is a gameplay conceit used in some RPGs to provide a continuous, consistent challenge to the player. As the player's character rises in level, aspects of the world will change to accommodate that character's growth. The most basic form of level scaling will increase the level of the enemies encountered, allowing their power to grow in step with the player. However, level scaling may also influence other aspects, such as the type and quality of loot found or the availability of certain quests." This is exactly what I said, but of course, the idiots will start splitting hairs to make it seem as though what I said is not that at all.

Level scaling exists in all RPGs as it is the main reason why people play RPGs. It is a powerwank to see your toon that can barely take on goblins in the beginning barely take on dragons later. And yet, if you give the goblins mage levels, you can get the same kind of challenge. From a game design point of view, there really isn't a big difference if it is level 21 goblin mage or an ancient red dragon. They are both level appropriate challenges for a level 20 toon. The enemy had scaled up from level 1 to level 20 because of the PC. That is level scaling. If level scaling do not occur, then the entire RPG genre would be dead. There is simply no point in high level characters going around nuking everything in sight with no repercussions at all. That is boring as hell. And that is why it doesn't happen in RPGs.

Except for the fact that any scientific theory basically becomes consensus. Meaning the vast majority of scientists accept it as the currently best model to describe that part of our reality. Your mistake is that you think that consensus is something irrevocable. It is not after all it is vital to science and the derived predictive models from it that in light of new evidence it gets either adjusted or overthrown. Newton's laws were for a long time accepted as the best way to describe motion. Then Einstein's relativity came and despite initial resistance was at some point accepted as the far better explanation for motion at the astronomical and sub atomic level. Despite Relativity being overall the better theory Newton is still used in limited day to day scope due to it's relative simplicity in terms of calculation. This too is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. The exceptions are overwhelmingly religious fundamentalists like Young Earth Creatards and other assorted bible humping literalists.

 

[Cael]

Is not level scaling in the sense most people refer to it. In Oblivion certain enemies might start at level 20 and only scale to level 40 or start at 1 and end at 10. That's the idea. So yeah, the devs wouldn't put a base level 20 in your path while you're likely under level 10. They'd use the enemies that scale from level 1 to 10 instead. Sometimes trash mobs get thrown in and whatnot because of course they do so you'd still encounter things that only scaled to a lower threshold.

I don't care what most people call something. As a scientist and an engineer, the consensus argument means nothing to me.

As the guy above you posted, "Level scaling is a gameplay conceit used in some RPGs to provide a continuous, consistent challenge to the player. As the player's character rises in level, aspects of the world will change to accommodate that character's growth. The most basic form of level scaling will increase the level of the enemies encountered, allowing their power to grow in step with the player. However, level scaling may also influence other aspects, such as the type and quality of loot found or the availability of certain quests." This is exactly what I said, but of course, the idiots will start splitting hairs to make it seem as though what I said is not that at all.

Level scaling exists in all RPGs as it is the main reason why people play RPGs. It is a powerwank to see your toon that can barely take on goblins in the beginning barely take on dragons later. And yet, if you give the goblins mage levels, you can get the same kind of challenge. From a game design point of view, there really isn't a big difference if it is level 21 goblin mage or an ancient red dragon. They are both level appropriate challenges for a level 20 toon. The enemy had scaled up from level 1 to level 20 because of the PC. That is level scaling. If level scaling do not occur, then the entire RPG genre would be dead. There is simply no point in high level characters going around nuking everything in sight with no repercussions at all. That is boring as hell. And that is why it doesn't happen in RPGs.

Except for the fact that any scientific theory basically becomes consensus. Meaning the vast majority of scientists accept it as the currently best model to describe that part of our reality. Your mistake is that you think that consensus is something irrevocable. It is not after all it is vital to science and the derived predictive models from it that in light of new evidence it gets either adjusted or overthrown. Newton's laws were for a long time accepted as the best way to describe motion. Then Einstein's relativity came and despite initial resistance was at some point accepted as the far better explanation for motion at the astronomical and sub atomic level. Despite Relativity being overall the better theory Newton is still used in limited day to day scope due to it's relative simplicity in terms of calculation. This too is accepted by the vast majority of scientists. The exceptions are overwhelmingly religious fundamentalists like Young Earth Creatards and other assorted bible humping literalists.

Becoming consensus is not the same as using consensus as the basis why something MUST be correct.

 

[Sykar]

If someone argues for example against evolution it is perfectly fine to point out that the overwhelming majority of scientists world wide accept it as the currently best model to describe bio diversity. It should not be your first or strongest argument but it is an argument nontheless.

 

[Cael]

If someone argues for example against evolution it is perfectly fine to point out that the overwhelming majority of scientists world wide accept it as the currently best model to describe bio diversity. It should not be your first or strongest argument but it is an argument nontheless.

No, it is not. And it never is as it is unscientific as hell, and prone to bullshit crap like that globullshit warming scam. You want to argue science, do it with facts and within the Scientific Method. If you want to argue feelz, then by all means use the consensus argument, but be prepared for people to laugh in your face and tell you your feelz means nothing to them and to fuck off.

 

[Sykar]

Now that is just nonsense.

 

[rusty_shackleford]

If someone argues for example against evolution it is perfectly fine to point out that the overwhelming majority of scientists world wide accept it as the currently best model to describe bio diversity. It should not be your first or strongest argument but it is an argument nontheless.

You mean the same scientists who assured me that protests in the name of racial justice were incapable of spreading infectious diseases?

 

[markec]

If someone argues for example against evolution it is perfectly fine to point out that the overwhelming majority of scientists world wide accept it as the currently best model to describe bio diversity. It should not be your first or strongest argument but it is an argument nontheless.

You mean the same scientists who assured me that protests in the name of racial justice were incapable of spreading infectious diseases?

Maybe he thinks of the scientists who say that if a man cuts off his dick off he turns into a woman.