Review Have they got no shame? Oblivion and the media

[Tintin]

Wait, they've made a Trailer Park Tycoon?

WHERE!?

HERE

 

[Ratty]

Interesting to know that you have a better grasp of game design than professional game designers, reviewers, and critics. HOT TIP: You're part of a niche group. You do not hold Sekret Ultimate Truth on this.

This isn't about *my* grasp of game design, but *yours*. You are the one who claims to be a professional game designer, yet is too inept to spot even the most basic blemishes in Oblivion.

Well, let's see. After putting in another 12 hours into Oblivion, a huge amount of that spent on combat, my original opinion about it is only solidifying. It's got even more nuances than I noticed at first, and group combat is really turning out great. Since you cheesed out with the word "innumerable" without actually listing any, I'll give you a nice list of some combat systems that are inferior to Oblivion's:

Daggerfall
Morrowind
Wizardry (all that I've played)
Might and Magic (all that I've played)
Ultima (all that I've played, though that's only about two)
Infinity Engine games (Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale)
AD&D Gold Box games
The Legend of Zelda (all of them)
Gothic II
Star Trail
Darklands

Here's a list of some combat systems that are superior to Oblivion's:

Tales of Symphonia
Grandia III

I'll say, what an uneducated list. As Section8 pointed out, the only games on your list that are even remotely comparable to Oblivion are Daggerfall, Morrowind and Gothic II. All of those have superior combat, for reasons I'll discuss later.

The use of the word "twitch" pretty much blacklists you.

Maybe so, but that doesn't make the word "twitchy" any less of an adequate adjective to describe combat in Oblivion.

False.

Oh, is it? And I suppose you base that claim on the fact that you created half a dozen diverse characters and tested the combat system with each and every one of them? Because I have been hearing *very* varying accounts. While some people complain about ridiculous lack of challenge even with a low-level character and poor-quality gear, others criticize extreme difficulty. I have heard about rangers who can mow down any monster with a single arrow shot, about mages (me, coincidentially) who have devised an unbeatable and highly sophisticated tactic which can be best summarized as block-block-block-fireball-block-block-block, but also about players who selected Long blade and Destructon as primary skills, yet keep dying every ten minutes. Brilliant balancing, that.

Subjective.

Probably.

Patently ridiculous. It's almost like you're competing with yourself to see how much more idiotic you can make each additional phrase be.

How is that ridiculous, pray tell? Oh, right:

Which has absolutely zero effect on the quality of the combat system as it pertains to the subgenre of action-RPG.

Thanks for confirming my view of you as a piss-poor game designer. Weapon skills are an integral part of the game. If they have litle or no effect on the combat system, then obviously the person who designed the combat system fucked up.

Make no mistake - the fact that Oblivion is an "action-RPG" doesn't mean the character system and the combat system can be assessed separately. The ruleset and the combat system in Arena and Daggerfall were designed the way they were for a reason, and only an idiot would fuck with the combat system without any consideration for the ruleset.

See, Arena, Daggerfall and even Morrowind have *better* combat than Oblivion, because their designers understood those games' roleplaying integrity partially rested upon the integrity of the combat system. The geniuses who designed Oblivion instead decided to appeal to retarded console trash, employed the moronic twitchy-twitch one action = one key-press system ripped off of 3rd person action-adventure games and half-assedly cludged it into the game without any consideration for its ruleset or the fact that it is an RPG. The end-result is a combat system which, though fun for simpletons like you, befits an Elder Scrolls game about as much as cancerous acne would befit Eva Herzigova.

Worst of all, Oblivion doesn't even quite work out as an action game, since I can think of many 3D action games with more enjoyable combat, from (relative) old-timers like Die By The Sword and Soul Reaver to newer titles like Fable, God of War and the new Prince of Persia. But hey, even though Oblivion may not be the best, it certainly is TEH BESTEST EVAR!!!11

Furthermore, Oblivion's combat requires no more "reflexes" than stopping at a traffic light when it changes colors from about a quarter of a mile away. Timing is not particularly precise, and overall combat is actually pretty slow given the long stagger times. It does require you to think fast, but that's true of all real-time games. I'm sorry if you find that difficult.

Before you start putting words in my mouth, remove Todd Howard's dick out of yours.

Straw man. I don't use buzzwords. It's easy to make people look dumb when you just make up stuff!

Wipe Todd's semen off your eyes and read the first page of the thread, dumbass. The reviewer described Oblivion visuals as "next-gen" and you wholeheartedly agreed with him like the good little sheep you are.

You have no idea what you were talking about. People apparently much smarter than you fixed the level of detail with far view distances about two days after release. Browse the .ini file some time, kid. Bethesda assumed people would want to sacrifice far-away quality in favor of better up-close quality. If you disagree, you're quite free to make all the necessary adjustments.

Gee, I never would have thought of that if you hadn't suggested it, moron! Oh, wait, you missed the fact that increasing the draw distance causes the frame-rate to slump into the single-digit zone and the game to freeze when loading an outdoor save.

And what about the moronic XBox 360 owners who got suckered into buying Oblivion by Bethesda's lies? How will they go about editing the .ini file? Talk about getting the short end of the stick.

Ah yes, let's poke fun at the low-quality option included for people with low-end machines while ignoring the inclusion of actual HDR.

Which HDR? Oh, you mean the one that can't be activated simultaneously with full-scene anti-aliasing despite the fact there are no hardware limitations preventing it?

Nonsense. One can study game design without playing more than a handful of games, technically speaking (which, of course, is not true at all in my case).

I'm sure one can. Ignorami like you are the end-result.

 

[Solik]

Hey, this keeps getting better. Stick around, you're working marvels for my self-esteem.

You are the one who claims to be a professional game designer

Bull-fucking-shit. I gave a single phrase that I had "studied" game design. That by no means makes me a professional, nor did I ever claim such. In fact, I didn't even claim authority; I was appealing to authority to qualify my statement, and those authorities were the authors of the articles and textbooks I've read. I am an amateur game designer, but my only work in the field includes a web-based strategy game, a couple MUDs, and some RPGMaker trash from my teenage years. I'm under no false pretenses here.

yet is too inept to spot even the most basic blemishes in Oblivion

Garbage again. Never once claimed it was perfect, nor will I ever (because it isn't). I could rattle off plenty of faults, problems, and design decisions I disagree with. But then, I could do that about any game that isn't too simplistic to write about.

As Section8 pointed out, the only games on your list that are even remotely comparable to Oblivion are Daggerfall, Morrowind and Gothic II

And as I pointed out, I was responding to your comment about the CRPG genre and related genres. If you meant "innumerable examples within the CRPG genre and other genres" to actually be "three or four action games," then you should have said so.

Maybe so, but that doesn't make the word "twitchy" any less of an adequate adjective to describe combat in Oblivion

This continues to prove your narrow-minded elitist idiocy.

And I suppose you base that claim on the fact that you created half a dozen diverse characters and tested the combat system with each and every one of them?

I created a light combat character with no magic skills, blades, and light armor. Combat is difficult for me, as it should be, but not impossible. As you say, I would expect indeed to find combat easier if I made a heavier combat character (at the expense of having these other things harder that I'm good at). If you're claiming that combat should be of the same difficulty for all character builds, then you're only proving even more the depth of your incompetance regarding basic game design concepts.

Weapon skills are an integral part of the game. If they have litle or no effect on the combat system, then obviously the person who designed the combat system fucked up.

I don't know what game you're playing, but in my copy of Oblivion, weapon skills (and block skill) are quite important in the combat. Oh right, you have a mage. So you're talking out your ass again. Which is odd, considering that in the preceeding paragraph, you even spoke about high-Marksman characters downing enemies easily. Your brilliance, it blinds me.

Prince of Persia does have great combat, yes. That one slipped my mind. It'd put it on par with Oblivion's. It does melee a little better, but has fewer overall options regarding combat. Granted, I haven't played the newest one.

Before you start putting words in my mouth, remove Todd Howard's dick out of yours

Gee, you really got me there!

Wipe Todd's semen off your eyes

It's like middle school all over again!

The reviewer described Oblivion visuals as "next-gen" and you wholeheartedly agreed with him

Pardon me for not writing a page and a half essay detailing specific words and phrases I would have not chosen to use. If that's the best you've got, just stop.

To clarify, I find the visuals to be great. I just think "next-gen" is a meaningless marketing phrase.

Oh, wait, you missed the fact that increasing the draw distance causes the frame-rate to slump into the single-digit zone and the game to freeze when loading an outdoor save.

Unless you balance it with tweaks like reducing grass density.

And what about the moronic XBox 360 owners who got suckered into buying Oblivion by Bethesda's lies?

I thought you didn't care about such morons and simpletons. Maybe only when it's convenient?

 

[Chefe]

Gasp! Look, up in the air! It's a bird! It's a plane! No, it's...

PENIS!

 

[Ratty]

Garbage again. Never once claimed it was perfect, nor will I ever (because it isn't). I could rattle off plenty of faults, problems, and design decisions I disagree with. But then, I could do that about any game that isn't too simplistic to write about.

Yet you agree the combat system is the best ever seen in an RPG (which is bullshit) and graphics are next generation (which, if true, doesn't bode well for the next generation)? What the hell are you trying to pull?

This continues to prove your narrow-minded elitist idiocy.

Better to be narrow-minded than feeble-minded. Care to explain why Oblivion's combat isn't twitchy? In juxtaposition with other CRPGs, mind you?

If you're claiming that combat should be of the same difficulty for all character builds, then you're only proving even more the depth of your incompetance regarding basic game design concepts.

No, just for players who choose combat skills as their primaries. I previously cited an example of an overpowered ranger and another example of a warrior-mage-thing who is having problems due to excessive difficulty. Obviously the combat system is balanced in favor of the ranger. Is that so hard to grasp?

I don't know what game you're playing, but in my copy of Oblivion, weapon skills (and block skill) are quite important in the combat.

How important, exactly? No, really, what do they affect? Damage? Speed? Awesome. And what about *chance to hit*? The most important combat stat in any RPG, action or otherwise, yet BethSoft decided to remove it for no reason other than giving Oblivion more mass appeal. Too bad they also managed to alienate hardcore TES fans - at least those who weren't already disaffected by shitty design in Morrowind and moved on to superior games like Gothic.

So you're talking out your ass again. Which is odd, considering that in the preceeding paragraph, you even spoke about high-Marksman characters downing enemies easily.

I was relating other people's accounts, genius. Are they talking out of their asses as well?

It's like middle school all over again!

Hardly, unless your middle-school experiences normally involved people spewing their man-yoghurt into your face.

To clarify, I find the visuals to be great. I just think "next-gen" is a meaningless marketing phrase.

At least something we agree on.

I thought you didn't care about such morons and simpletons. Maybe only when it's convenient?

I don't care for them and in fact find this whole situation amusing. Think about it, XBox 360 is supposedly a "next-gen" console. The first next-gen game comes along and 360 already can't handle it properly. Pathetic.

 

[franc kaos]

Oh, is it? And I suppose you base that claim on the fact that you created half a dozen diverse characters and tested the combat system with each and every one of them? Because I have been hearing *very* varying accounts. While some people complain about ridiculous lack of challenge even with a low-level character and poor-quality gear, others criticize extreme difficulty. I have heard about rangers who can mow down any monster with a single arrow shot, about mages (me, coincidentially) who have devised an unbeatable and highly sophisticated tactic which can be best summarized as block-block-block-fireball-block-block-block, but also about players who selected Long blade and Destructon as primary skills, yet keep dying every ten minutes. Brilliant balancing, that.

Not joining the argument, but I chose long blade and destruction as my primaries (+ restoration and light armour), 15 hours in (two characters), and I've died once - locked up for a fucking misdemeanour, tried pickpocketing the guard and he mullered me. Some of the fights have been damned close, but it's the first TES (and yeah I played 'em all - finished Arena 'n Daggerfall, got bored of MW), where I use To Touch spells, not just fireballs; where the feeling of being in close quarter fighting is extremely well done.

The fighting, for me, does feel infinitely better than MW and just beats Gothic2 (can't remember Daggerfall or Arena's fighting style) - oh, and I've not gone into fights loaded down with potions or anything.

EDIT:

I don't care for them and in fact find this whole situation amusing. Think about it, XBox 360 is supposedly a "next-gen" console. The first next-gen game comes along and 360 already can't handle it properly. Pathetic.

Well, don't forget, Bethesda have never been known for their great programming skills, they're crap at optimisation, bug hunting - or even writing their own engine. They're using, Gamebryo, Speedtree, Havok and Facegen. Their animations are at best ok (still got skating NPCs for Todds sake), and their much vaunted AI routines have been neutered for being buggy as hell. I'm pretty sure other developers will offer the 360 more pretty graphics.

Carry on.

 

[dunduks]

Solik, the main question is whether can you see flaws in Oblivion or are you just blindly agreeing with everything Bethesda does? Your claim that Ob has the "bestest graphix evar" is far fetched, only blind man would miss the "skating" enemies, bad animation, etc. I do agree that static models look ok, but even then some of the models are seriously fucked up - for example female models.

Grandia III

Are you serious? You don't play a lot of games, do you?

Hey, say what you will, but Grandia has the best phase based combat I've ever seen.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Well, maybe you should have explained what do you mean by intrinsic value before you used the term. As you can see, it is not a self-evident term. Intrinsic elements and defining elements are different notions for me, so combining them together like you did makes little sense.

I thought intrinsic was fairly self-evident under the context of it referring to the essential or fundamental nature of something, of any elements which constitute the whole of a thing - and especially so in regards to what I was discussing. Would there be a better term? Perhaps, but intrinsic and defining are not necessarily different terms though as you say they may be different notions to some.

As Human Shield suggested, it can (and does) refer to objective characteristics of something which can be broken down and have its constituent parts and their interplay analyzed, both as standalone elements or as a whole. And going back to the previous argument, the constituent elements of anything as well as the whole can generally be analyzed objectively and appraised subjectively - and as I said back there no one was criticizing the expressions of subjectivity in reviews but its overshadowing or being used in lieu of objectivity.

 

[yipsl]

Wait, they've made a Trailer Park Tycoon?

WHERE!?

Sorry, Tin Tin beat me to it. I kind of thought of Seyda Neen as the Trailer Park of Tamriel where they settled the on parole unthrappa eating "meat mandate" cannibals, the out of jail beast races and assigned the crooked guards and tax collectors.

Sounds like it was a tolerable Tycoon game. I wonder if they had UFO's buzzing by? What would a blend of Trailer Park Tycoon and XCOM: UFO Defense be like?

I have been hearing *very* varying accounts. While some people complain about ridiculous lack of challenge even with a low-level character and poor-quality gear, others criticize extreme difficulty. I have heard about rangers who can mow down any monster with a single arrow shot, about mages (me, coincidentially) who have devised an unbeatable and highly sophisticated tactic which can be best summarized as block-block-block-fireball-block-block-block, but also about players who selected Long blade and Destructon as primary skills, yet keep dying every ten minutes. Brilliant balancing, that.

I just read a thread over at Blood and Shadows where a guy created a thief with no armor and blade. He could not survive. He was advised to rely on the guards to do his fighting for him against the Daedra in the early MQ to find Brother Martin and he was also advised to rely on bow more.

I'm planning a no armor acrobatics oriented Khajiit with hand to hand. I'll try him without destruction at first and give my impression. He's a custom acrobat/mage but I've always taken alteration, illusion and restoration instead of destruction for him.

Perhaps we do have the game the devs want to play, and they forgot to balance the game for all other types? Guess those rocket launcher staves will come in handy.

It's like middle school all over again!

To clarify, I find the visuals to be great. I just think "next-gen" is a meaningless marketing phrase.

I'll admit that my enjoyment of good talking points for RPG discussion is lessened by crude comments that are the Codex equivalent to the official board's text message slang fanboyism.

He had a good point about character builds. Combat should not be as easy for all character types, but in situations where a stealth character cannot use stealth, but must use a ranged weapon because they're following Imperial solidiers and guards, then the game looses a bit of it's balance as in the original assertion that a character of each pure class could finish this game using only the skills of that class.

So far, without having the game. I find the visuals quite good for a current game. There's nothing that's next gen period, since the next generation hasn't arrived and is only barely on the hardware, software and game development drawing boards. Oblivion is a game who's visual development began with tech that was high end for Morrowind, and it fails to incorporate some of the features of high end PC tech today; witness the no AA and HDR on the X1900 cards (one of which I'm getting for my new build as soon as I have enough money saved up). That leads me to believe the Xbox 360 was favored at the end of the development cycle for marketing purposes to show the console fanboys that they really had the best platform for Oblivion.

 

[Solik]

Yet you agree the combat system is the best ever seen in an RPG (which is bullshit)

Depends on how you define "RPG." If you're talking about CRPGs, I would agree that it's certainly among the best (which stands to reason, since few of them focus much of their development effort on it). If you include console RPGs, well, I'd have to disagree. If you're talking action-RPGs, it's at least in the running for "best."

I may change my mind after playing more characters and looking back at it. I generally rate things higher when they're new and I'm actively playing them.

Care to explain why Oblivion's combat isn't twitchy?

"Twitchy" is as empty a term as "next-gen," used by Everquest fanboys who can't stand the least little bit of challenge or skill required to play a game. Ask me a real question and I'll give you a real answer.

I previously cited an example of an overpowered ranger and another example of a warrior-mage-thing who is having problems due to excessive difficulty.

That's some seriously shallow proof. Story-time!

Last night, I fought my first mountain lion. I gaped as the thing mauled me repeatedly. I was eventually only able to win by using just about every potion in my inventory. This after I'd cleared an Oblivion gate and a fortress of undead. I couldn't believe it. I started to think you were right.

Then I looked at my inventory and realized that my equipment was in tatters. I went to town, fixed it all up, went back to the wilderness, and proceeded to demolish my foes.

The warrior-mage who is having troubles may not be a very good player. He may have gimped his character by choosing a race and custom class stat focus combination that left his primaries weaker than they should be. He may not realize how important keeping your equipment in top shape really is. He may not have upgraded his spells or be using them effectively. He may not have figured out that attacking enemies who are blocking with your weapon is a bad idea. He may have no means of defense and low HP, resulting in him getting raped when enemies close in -- and is too slow to keep that from happening (and also without summons or any other means of protection).

Meanwhile, I suspect that ranger is doing some serious exaggeration. Marksman is one of my primary skills. Even with sneak attacks, I have to really pincushion enemies to bring them down. I suppose at uber-high ranks, when he's doing 4x sneak damage plus paralysis, he might be owning, but then, he should be.

Just to note, one of the first gameplay-affecting mods was one that increased the power of bows, because a lot of people think they're gimped.

And what about *chance to hit*?

They did something different! Oh noez! Lynch 'em all for not following the 35-year-old D&D formula!

Well, except it really isn't that new after all. In fact, just about every action-RPG, from Drakan to Gothic, nixed chance to hit rolls in favor of more sensible character impact on combat. The abstraction simply isn't necessary here.

Solik, the main question is whether can you see flaws in Oblivion or are you just blindly agreeing with everything Bethesda does?

Of course I see flaws. There's plenty of them. I see the skating, the clumsy fade-ins, the RAI goof-ups, the original interface issues, the journal quest hints that are a little too helpful, the extreme ease of hitting your allies (or worse, their horses) in group fights, the really weird face coloring, the inability to wear clothes with armor, the limited hair lengths, the goofball-looking moons in the night sky, the too-easy and somewhat nonsensical persuasion minigame, the levelling issues, the bugs (got my first CTD last night), and so forth.

I just don't think they're as bad as people make them out to be. Most to all of them are pretty minor and rarely detract from the game (for me).

I just read a thread over at Blood and Shadows where a guy created a thief with no armor and blade. He could not survive. He was advised to rely on the guards to do his fighting for him against the Daedra in the early MQ to find Brother Martin and he was also advised to rely on bow more.

Yep, that sounds like a very difficult combat build -- moderate damage, all close-range, and zero protection. I'd suggest he focus on speed and agility and try to avoid getting hit instead of going toe-to-toe (weaving out of range of attacks, countering after a missed heavy swing, etc). Also, get the Dodge perk ASAP.

 

[Ratty]

Depends on how you define "RPG." If you're talking about CRPGs, I would agree that it's certainly among the best (which stands to reason, since few of them focus much of their development effort on it).

This view I simply don't understand. Oblivion marginalizes combat-related skills, forcing the player to rely on his reflexes and ignoring the basic CRPG premise that character skills rather than player skills determine the outcome of an action. On the other hand, there are games like Fallout and Geneforge as examples of well-balanced, slow-paced, thoughtful, tactically deep turn-based combat, in true pencil & paper RP style, with rolls and skill checks behind every action, the player deciding only how they will use the abilities at their disposal and the engine taking care of the rest - which is the whole point of roleplaying. Oblivion combat is so different it's incomparable and while I can understand how one may find it "fun", from roleplaying perspective it's horribly lacking, hence there is no way it can be considered "the best ever seen in a CRPG".

If you include console RPGs, well, I'd have to disagree.

I don't include them. "Console RPGs" are mostly adventure games.

If you're talking action-RPGs, it's at least in the running for "best."

Possibly, but I find Gothic combat objectively better, for reasons I mentioned in an earlier post.

I may change my mind after playing more characters and looking back at it. I generally rate things higher when they're new and I'm actively playing them.

I tend to do the same. I actually elevated KotOR to my top 10 games list during my first run. Two runs later it would barely make the top 50.

"Twitchy" is as empty a term as "next-gen," used by Everquest fanboys who can't stand the least little bit of challenge or skill required to play a game. Ask me a real question and I'll give you a real answer.

By "twitchy" I mean what I described above - relying on reflexes and button mashing rather than good, old-fashioned planning and tact.

I couldn't believe it. I started to think you were right.

You should have stopped right there.

He may have no means of defense

This is likely the reason - he uses no armor. While I agree an armorless character should have a harder time surviving battles, there is really no excuse for the gargantuan leap in difficulty.

They did something different! Oh noez! Lynch 'em all for not following the 35-year-old D&D formula!

The "formula" is used in just about every P&P RPG, because it's the most appropriate way of projecting characters' combat skills into their battle performance.

Well, except it really isn't that new after all. In fact, just about every action-RPG, from Drakan to Gothic, nixed chance to hit rolls in favor of more sensible character impact on combat. The abstraction simply isn't necessary here.

You mean, more sensible *player* impact. Remember what we said earlier about roleplaying and character skills.

Oh, and Drakan wasn't an action RPG but an action-adventure game with stats. There's a difference.

Of course I see flaws. There's plenty of them. I see the skating, the clumsy fade-ins, the RAI goof-ups, the original interface issues, the journal quest hints that are a little too helpful, the extreme ease of hitting your allies (or worse, their horses) in group fights, the really weird face coloring, the inability to wear clothes with armor, the limited hair lengths, the goofball-looking moons in the night sky, the too-easy and somewhat nonsensical persuasion minigame, the levelling issues, the bugs (got my first CTD last night), and so forth.

Then why didn't you say so in the first place? Yeesh, first you agree with two reviews which sing a load of unwarranted praises and then, five pages later, list more flaws than I thought there existed.

I just don't think they're as bad as people make them out to be. Most to all of them are pretty minor and rarely detract from the game (for me).

The issue here is that they are *there*, yet most reviewers neglect to mention them at all or fail to take them into account when rating the game. It's especially amusing how many critics devote about 80% of the review to salivating over the graphics and don't even discuss what I consider Oblivion's strongest point - namely, the potent development tools which ship with the game. That's just irresponsible.

Another issue is the fact that a lot of features BethSoft hyped the most aren't working as advertised or are even missing. You mentioned Radiant A.I. which was announced as an almost revolutionary features, yet is often as stupid as Morrowind A.I. and its frequent cough-ups actually make it inferior to Gothic A.I. - which, by the way, premiered five years ago! Then let's not forget the vaunted HDR, which for some reason doesn't work in conjunction with full-scene anti aliasing, a very common and important feature. All this means BethSoft lied to the community, which is simply inexcusable. If you don't believe me, go over to the Elder Scrolls forums, where a lot of long-time fans are raving about Oblivion's considerable shortcomings. Remember, these are the people who, only a week ago, were too busy sucking developers' collective dicks to mumble anything but incoherent praises.

 

[HardCode]

Interesting to know that you have a better grasp of game design than professional game designers, reviewers, and critics. HOT TIP: You're part of a niche group. You do not hold Sekret Ultimate Truth on this.

And here, dear Child, shows your immaturity and total ignorance to the Real World (TM). You see, not everyone working within a profession is actually GOOD at it. If you look around in life, you will find most people do what they do mediocre or poorly.

How many professional truck drivers actually drive good? Once you get your license, you will see.

How many professional actors really act good? We can have a 2000 post thread to bad performances.

How many professional programmers program good? Work with some, sometime, and you will understand the answer is, "Not too many."

How many professional designers actually design well? Look at end-of-the-season sales in the stores.

 

[Solik]

Oblivion marginalizes combat-related skills, forcing the player to rely on his reflexes and ignoring the basic CRPG premise that character skills rather than player skills determine the outcome of an action.

This is simply not the case. It doesn't matter how good you are at the combat; if your character skills / equipment aren't comparatively up to snuff with your opponent, then you're probably going to lose. You'll still take damage when you block (and will stagger helplessly, too); your weak attacks will fail to stagger your opponent; you'll be unable to stun, disarm, knockdown, or paralyze; etc. I've seen the change by fighting the same (unlevelled) creature at multiple levels; at level 4, the basic Dremora-type almost owned me one-on-one. At level 11, I can easily demolish two of them. My player skills have improved a little bit, sure, but character improvements are far and away the prime factor.

By "twitchy" I mean what I described above - relying on reflexes and button mashing rather than good, old-fashioned planning and tact.

As I've said before, Oblivion requires very little in the way of reflexes to keep up with its combat system. It does require fast thinking, but you don't exactly have to be a master of hand-eye coordination. Tact is still needed. Your decisions include whether to block, attack, or dodge; which type of attack to do and how many to do (how far can you press before the opponent blocks and staggers you?); which spells and abilities to use and when; how to position yourself to take advantage of geometry and traps, particularly when fighting multiple opponents; and so forth. All of those decisions must be made in the context of the shape of your equipment, your ability to replenish items, the number of expected encounters remaining before you reach a safe area, your current HP / stamina / magicka, expected enemy HP, weapon attack speed, on and on. Admittedly, most of them are relatively simple decisions, but that's true about most RPG systems. That's why it's nice to have to make them fast -- it adds challenge to something that's normally simply dull.

Of course, one can also argue that planning and tact aren't roleplaying. It's relying on the player's battle tactics instead of the character's. There have been several topics here about it. In the end, you have three choices. One, have fast real-time combat similar to Oblivion and Gothic. Two, have slower turn-based combat that relies more on planning and managing multiple characters. Three, let the battles play themselves. Two of those can be fun, but only one of them really relies just on character skills. Guess which are which.

Happily, Oblivion's combat system actually works well with the character decisions you've made. If you chose to be a strong Nord in light armor wielding two-handed weapons, then your combat play style will work out that way. If you're a quick dagger-wielding rogue, then that's how your combat will feel. Same with bow-users and magic-users.

This is likely the reason - he uses no armor.

Or shields, apparently. I could see a swashbuckler-type using a sword and no armor, but you'd need the Block skill at least. If not that, then protective magic. Something. As I said though, he may be able to use his other abilities to simply keep from getting hit much. Someone mentioned that you can leap over people's heads with 60-something Acrobatics and no armor. Could be an option.

The "formula" is used in just about every P&P RPG, because it's the most appropriate way of projecting characters' combat skills into their battle performance.

It's used in P&P RPGs because they are forced to abstract at quite a high level. Detailed video games can shift the abstraction to other areas.

Then why didn't you say so in the first place? Yeesh, first you agree with two reviews which sing a load of unwarranted praises and then, five pages later, list more flaws than I thought there existed.

Because I think the game is great despite them. Because there's plenty of other people already pointing out those flaws. Because if I were to write a review, I probably wouldn't even comment on most of them; I'd need a huge review spanning a good number of pages to justify mentioning them in accurate context of everything else.

You mentioned Radiant A.I. which was announced as an almost revolutionary features, yet is often as stupid as Morrowind A.I. and its frequent cough-ups actually make it inferior to Gothic A.I. - which, by the way, premiered five years ago!

Gothic has far fewer NPCs that have a much smaller range of activities they need to engage in within a much smaller world. Nothing like this has ever been attempted on Oblivion's scale. I would not expect its AI to be as strong as a game with far fewer characters performing more focused, non-random actions.

All this means BethSoft lied to the community, which is simply inexcusable.

For some reason, this gives me the urge to scream "BUSH LIED! PEOPLE DIED! NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" In other words, it's entirely unfair and weakens your overall position.

You see, not everyone working within a profession is actually GOOD at it.

I suspect even most poor professional actors are better at acting than I am.

 

[Ratty]

This is simply not the case. It doesn't matter how good you are at the combat; if your character skills / equipment aren't comparatively up to snuff with your opponent, then you're probably going to lose. You'll still take damage when you block (and will stagger helplessly, too); your weak attacks will fail to stagger your opponent; you'll be unable to stun, disarm, knockdown, or paralyze; etc. I've seen the change by fighting the same (unlevelled) creature at multiple levels; at level 4, the basic Dremora-type almost owned me one-on-one. At level 11, I can easily demolish two of them. My player skills have improved a little bit, sure, but character improvements are far and away the prime factor.

Of course, equipment and various perks have great impact on combat, but this holds true for any action game with character stats. But by making the player skill a vital factor in combat, Oblivion blatantly contradicts the very definition of CRPG and strays into the area of action/RPG hybrids. While that doesn't mean its combat isn't enjoyable (well, I find it unenjoyable for a number of reasons, but I can see how many people might like it), it still makes it lacking from the standpoint of CRPG design.

As I've said before, Oblivion requires very little in the way of reflexes to keep up with its combat system. It does require fast thinking, but you don't exactly have to be a master of hand-eye coordination. Tact is still needed. Your decisions include whether to block, attack, or dodge; which type of attack to do and how many to do (how far can you press before the opponent blocks and staggers you?); which spells and abilities to use and when; how to position yourself to take advantage of geometry and traps, particularly when fighting multiple opponents; and so forth. All of those decisions must be made in the context of the shape of your equipment, your ability to replenish items, the number of expected encounters remaining before you reach a safe area, your current HP / stamina / magicka, expected enemy HP, weapon attack speed, on and on. Admittedly, most of them are relatively simple decisions, but that's true about most RPG systems. That's why it's nice to have to make them fast -- it adds challenge to something that's normally simply dull.

It still requires more reflexes and allows for less tact than the average turn-based or phase-based combat system, which are norm for RPGs. In addition to this, I find the first person view disorienting in melee, lack of the ability to lock on a creature (Gothic-style) complicates matters when facing more than one opponent, while suicidal allies getting in the line of fire will cause even the most skilled marksman to snap, put away his bow and engage the enemies in melee. All these flaws mean it can be excruciatingly difficult to control the battle and emloy tactics efficiently, too often reducing it to mindless button mashing. That's what I mean when I say combat in Oblivion is "twitchy".

Of course, one can also argue that planning and tact aren't roleplaying. It's relying on the player's battle tactics instead of the character's. There have been several topics here about it. In the end, you have three choices. One, have fast real-time combat similar to Oblivion and Gothic. Two, have slower turn-based combat that relies more on planning and managing multiple characters. Three, let the battles play themselves. Two of those can be fun, but only one of them really relies just on character skills. Guess which are which.

It's used in P&P RPGs because they are forced to abstract at quite a high level. Detailed video games can shift the abstraction to other areas.

In P&P roleplaying combat is typically turn-based (though phase-based isn't uncommon either) and thus combat is at least partially determined by the player's tactical ability. Since a CRPG is, by definition, an effort to actualize the style and mechanics of P&P roleplaying on computers, it's natural that a true, pure CRPG will utilize either a turn-based combat system or a phase-based combat system. While deviations and alternatives are certainly possible, a CRPG which features FPS combat is clearly no longer a CRPG, but a hybrid.

Gothic has far fewer NPCs that have a much smaller range of activities they need to engage in within a much smaller world. Nothing like this has ever been attempted on Oblivion's scale. I would not expect its AI to be as strong as a game with far fewer characters performing more focused, non-random actions.

There is no indication that Gothic A.I. routines wouldn't work properly if cities were larger and NPCs more numerous and with a broader range of activities. Though I concur that it's up to Gothic III to prove or disprove the superiority of Radiant A.I.

For some reason, this gives me the urge to scream "BUSH LIED! PEOPLE DIED! NO BLOOD FOR OIL!" In other words, it's entirely unfair and weakens your overall position.

Bethesda consciously tried to deceive its fans and I don't see why it's wrong to denounce them for it.

I suspect even most poor professional actors are better at acting than I am.

I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Solik]

But by making the player skill a vital factor in combat, Oblivion blatantly contradicts the very definition of CRPG and strays into the area of action/RPG hybrids.

It doesn't stray into it, it leaps in head-first. The developers themselves consider Oblivion to be an "action-RPG." That was their goal from day one. Actually, I think it always has been in Elder Scrolls, they just never bothered sitting down and making a really thick combat system; previously, it always felt obligatory and tacked-on.

Bethesda consciously tried to deceive its fans and I don't see why it's wrong to denounce them for it.

I seriously doubt it. At worst it was "We're going to have this," then later they realize "Shit, we can't do that... uh oh." More commonly, I think people just had crafted their own expectations based on incidental phrases or comments, then suddenly got mad when the game turned out a little different. This happens with all games, every time.

 

[Rat Keeng]

At worst it was "We're going to have this," then later they realize "Shit, we can't do that... uh oh."

Yeah, let's say I've just bet you $100 I can redo my apartment, completely transform it by building carpeted levels into it. Upon closer inspection, I discover it's gonna be a ton of hard work, take a long-ass time for me to do, so I decide not to do it. Who wins the bet?

 

[mister lamat]

[quote="Rat Keeng]Yeah, let's say I've just bet you $100 I can redo my apartment, completely transform it by building carpeted levels into it. Upon closer inspection, I discover it's gonna be a ton of hard work, take a long-ass time for me to do, so I decide not to do it. Who wins the bet?[/quote]

it's more like you bet him $100 that you could do all that to your appartment in an alternate universe, only to find out there are no right angles in said universe. the guy at the extradimensional hardware store may have told you that 'levels in a box' would work fine in your home, but once you get it there it's all slopes.