Oblivion won't be the worst game ever.

[whitemithrandir]

The example from Planescape: Tournament where you must choose something to sacrafice is strait out of the final conflict in Baldur's Gate: SOA.

Planescape: Torment was made before Baldur's Gate: SOA.

You have to open a series of portal doors to retrieve a tear from each one. If I remember correctly there were 7 doors each named after the seven deadly sins and each required you to make a choice.

That's a BS choice. You can just sacrifice your stats and won't feel much of a difference, and you make it up anyway by gaining upgrades from aligning the tears. The sacrifices in Ps:T at the pillar were of a much more serious degree.

One of them told you a story and asked how you would react in the situation given and depending upon how you answered, your alignment was modified, you gained stat boosts, or lost stats. Another one had a Genie gaurding it. The genie had a sword with him that was, *rediculously* powerfull. The only way the genie could be freed was if someone offered him the sword as a gift, allowing him to unlock the bracers that bound him to the mortal plane. You had to have the bracers to open the door to get the tear. You could either give him the sword, freeing him, and he would give you his bracers but you would lose the sword, or you could pop him with it, loot the bracers from his dead etheral body, and open the door. Depending on what you did your alignment was modified. There was another door involving sacrafice of either yourself (Stats) or a friend - friend died and couldn't be resurrected... Yada yada yada, I loved that game.

BG2 was a good RPG, no doubt.

 

[whitemithrandir]

Thats shows ... Planescape have no morality outside the good/evil and law/chaos axis that is part of the setting.

The story is "you wake and up and dont remenber a thing ... and you cannot die either", the purpose of the game is finding who we are and why we cannot die as we see evidence of actions done by us in the past.

Fable is far worst with its good/evil paths that are so fucking obvious and un-rewarding (there is no point in being good or evil),

Hey man, if you played Fable, you've only got yourself to blame.

if you bitch about JRPGs at least they try to show a point, unlike most WRPGs that are "kill and loot" without meaning beyond the usual good/evil christian morality.

I haven't played enough JRPG's to criticize the genre, but I wasn't very impressed with FF7.

 

[funkbutter]

I know PsT was first, I didn't mean it like that. Although, I've never played it.

The stat penalties were, indeed, minor. An alignment alteration came with each of them, though. I remember being really happy with my character statwise after that encounter (even though my stats were crazy high due to the tombs in BG:1) but was pissed because my alignment had gone evil. Maybe I'm just evil inside like that =(.

 

[Drakron]

I haven't played enough JRPG's to criticize the genre, but I wasn't very impressed with FF7.

I never played FF VII but the intended ending for FF X was Tidus destroy Sin to end the dream but that means he would cease to exist as well.

The point I was trying to make is that JRPG dont follow the cristian ideas of Good vs Evil that WRPGs do, like in Fable were Jack of Blades is nothing more that another POWER, UNLIMITED POWER Villan that makes Malak look like a developed character ... in fact as much we complain about BioWare they did made Irenicus that had a unusual amount of backstory and deep that is not common in the standart WRPG "Final Boss".

I am sure several JRPG end up with the "PURE EVIL - UNLIMITED POWER! final bosses ...

 

[obediah]

The only one of those three things you mentioned about Planescape that seemed remotely interesting was the sacrifice thing. The first one just means, pick an option and read what some guy wrote in as what happens. Glorified Choose Your Own Adventure; nothing more, nothing less. Those moral choices almost always feel like some egotistical game writer preaching to me, too, if I happen to make the choice that he thinks is morally wrong while I think it's the best choice.

You must be a real hoot in a PnP game. I wonder if your friends every forget to wake you up when they get to the combat stuff.

While the sacrifice choice is a fun choice, it's also the kind that would seriously piss me off; it basically forces extra play-throughs, because that sounds like it has major impacts on the game flow. And if you find out an hour later you made a choice that's resulting in you having less fun, and you saved over your game before that choice... you're just screwed. Bad game design.

I hate to break it to you, but you don't like Role Playing games. That is fine, many many people don't like RPGs. I don't like racing games, but you don't see me over at NASCARCODEX telling them all what a great racing game Oblivion will be because you can ride a horse.

Also if EA advertised Madden 2007 as an RPG because players have skill points, we here at the RPG CODEX would start up a thread about what a load of bullshit that claim is. If they added a bunch of RPG components to make it a hybrid, we'd even have lots of arguments about it, because uhm this is THE RPG CODEX.

It's really not that hard to grasp.

 

[funkbutter]

I just thought I'd say,

Fuck final fantasy 1 through whatever number they're on.

RPG? Wrong. The only reason they call it an RPG is because there is no INTERACTIVE MOVIE category.

Fruity ass characters and their fruity ass gimicky super powers like that fancy little faerie man that wears his shitty little sword arm in a fruity little sling. I spit on final fantasy.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Having not played Planescape, I'm in no position to judge the quality of its moral judgments; I'm just speaking in general terms from a myriad of games. All too often, the game designer uses the excuse of "moral choice" to promote his own moral or ethical philosophy and show how bad all the others are.

That's not the case. There are no right or wrong choices. Using the example with the daughter it's really hard to say which line is the best answer. The man's reaction is what you'd expect to hear under the circumstances. Again, there is no best reaction here. It's not to judge you, but to provide scenarios helping you to define your character.

 

[elander_]

That's not true, at least it's not as little as that. You're seriously kidding yoursef if you haven't seen the new people who come here, then suddenly turn into patrick-stewart joking, oblivion hating, fallout loving, cynically replying, etc, clones.

It's not our fault these new cattle are weak minded.

Who are you calling new? I have allways been cynical since the time i sold my commodore Amiga and had to buy a crappy pc. But im a lot less cynical now.

 

[Solik]

You must be a real hoot in a PnP game. I wonder if your friends every forget to wake you up when they get to the combat stuff.

lol. The guy I DM'd for who actually told me to do that once would get a laugh out of THAT one. In all three groups I've played in, I was the only person that gave a damn about roleplay (hence my exit from those groups).

But see, when I'm sitting in front of a computer by myself, the whole "interact with other people as if you were someone else" thing is just a wee bit hard to pull off. Instead, what computer games are good at in RPG terms is presenting you with a series of challenges and obstacles, and you design a character with various abilities to use to overcome those obstacles. Computers are a horrible medium for conveying the type of play you get in PnP. Especially in the MMO department.

I hate to break it to you, but you don't like Role Playing games.

I hate to break it to you, but you are an arrogant, assuming bastard. I enjoy roleplaying. I do not enjoy being told a story by some half-wit that's writing game stories because all his novels got rejected while I watch his polygon puppets dance about the screen. The two are not in any way related.

I was not incorrect. The example presented was bad game design -- if you choose to sacrifice the item, you miss out on a big area of the game. Once you find out about that, if you really wanted to see said area, you get to start back at a saved game -- or all the way back at the beginning -- to correct the error and get to see the area. You know, the one in the game. That you paid for. You paid for all of it. Not just a few pieces.

It's really not that hard to grasp.

 

[Zomg]

Instead, what computer games are good at in RPG terms is presenting you with a series of challenges and obstacles, and you design a character with various abilities to use to overcome those obstacles. Computers are a horrible medium for conveying the type of play you get in PnP. Especially in the MMO department.

No argument on the MMO environment. Try the game Darklands, you might like it, and the atmosphere is pretty good, too.

 

[Solik]

Is it an MMO? I avoid them out of principle. I just don't get the appeal of shelling out cash every month for 15-year-old gameplay and hearing somebody shout "MONEYS FOR A N00B?????" every other minute.

 

[Zomg]

It's not an MMO.

Edit - Although the 15 year old gameplay is nearly correct.

 

[Solik]

I see. Old-school Microprose RPG. Interesting. Underdogs seems to have it available. Might give it a whirl. I loved Microprose games from that era.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I enjoy roleplaying. I do not enjoy being told a story by some half-wit that's writing game stories because all his novels got rejected while I watch his polygon puppets dance about the screen. The two are not in any way related.

I'm almost afraid to ask what role-playing means to you, but I'll do anyway.

For those who are just joining us to watch the drama the reference is to the PST dialogues. I assume the half-wit is Chris Avellone.

The example presented was bad game design -- if you choose to sacrifice the item, you miss out on a big area of the game. Once you find out about that, if you really wanted to see said area, you get to start back at a saved game -- or all the way back at the beginning -- to correct the error and get to see the area. You know, the one in the game. That you paid for. You paid for all of it. Not just a few pieces.

Here is an example of good game design: you can join all guilds and become the ruler of everything that could be ruled. Because you know, you paid for everything. Yep. All of it.

 

[kingcomrade]

I don't like racing games, but you don't see me over at NASCARCODEX telling them all what a great racing game Oblivion will be because you can ride a horse.

Obediah, that is why this faggy cowboy loves you

 

[Solik]

Here is an example of good game design: you can join all guilds and become the ruler of everything that could be ruled.

That's different. Subtly so, but the difference is still important. Games with different guilds designed for different characters that can be joined almost right at character creation are designed for multiple play-throughs. While TES games have a main quest, it's not like it's the driving force behind the game, where from day one until the Game Over screen you're pursuing the central plotline. From what I have gathered about Planescape, it is instead a single-path game. This choice that's present isn't at level 1, so you can't just create up a new character and go play the other paths. Instead, you're forced to repeat a huge section of the game that you've already played to get there again, viewing the same cutscenes and fighting the same battles.

I'm almost afraid to ask what role-playing means to you, but I'll do anyway.

It's a little different depending on context, so I'll try to be as generic as possible, while acknowledging that it means I'll miss some sub-genres and niches.

To me, roleplay means creating/defining a character yourself (personality foremost in multiplayer, abilities foremost in single-player, but both always present to some degree), then playing that character within a game environment that responds to you rather than just pulling you along a straight path. The more interactive the better; although there should be separation between player skill and character skill, there's no need for it to be absolute.

The best kinds of choices are the subtle ones presented by the game environment. The stark in-your-face choices (the "dialogue option" thing) can be fun, but if that's all there is, then it's just a Choose Your Own Adventure book on top of some kind of tactical game. It's better for a game to react to your actions within the game environment than just present you some list of words to pick from and go with.

 

[whitemithrandir]

This choice that's present isn't at level 1, so you can't just create up a new character and go play the other paths. Instead, you're forced to repeat a huge section of the game that you've already played to get there again, viewing the same cutscenes and fighting the same battles.

... as opposed to exploring identical dungeons, clicking on identical monsters until they die, and get dragged on linear quests where you have no say what-so-ever in the outcomes of? "Well what if I don't want to kiill Dagoth Ur? What if I want to join the sixth house?" You'd think it would be a viable option since TES games are all about "freedom", but no. There's one and only one way to finish a quest. Role-playing MY ASS. Freedom? Bullshit. You go here, you do this, you come back, I give you reward. No, you have to do it MY WAY, or you don't get the quest completed. So tell me, where's the freedom in THAT?

It's a little different depending on context, so I'll try to be as generic as possible, while acknowledging that it means I'll miss some sub-genres and niches.

To me, roleplay means creating/defining a character yourself (personality foremost in multiplayer, abilities foremost in single-player, but both always present to some degree), then playing that character within a game environment that responds to you rather than just pulling you along a straight path. The more interactive the better; although there should be separation between player skill and character skill, there's no need for it to be absolute.

The best kinds of choices are the subtle ones presented by the game environment. The stark in-your-face choices (the "dialogue option" thing) can be fun, but if that's all there is, then it's just a Choose Your Own Adventure book on top of some kind of tactical game. It's better for a game to react to your actions within the game environment than just present you some list of words to pick from and go with.

A game environment that "reacts to your actions"? Huh? Did morrowind have that? Did anyone give a shit that I was the head of three guilds? Did anything really change? Did the game world change because I'm pretty much a demigod among men, having slaughtered countless thousands? Could I boss people around as leader of the fighter's guild? Can I order people to steal for me as leader of the thief guild? Did anyone in the game GIVE A FUCK about me AT ALL?

no.

A reactive world? Freedom of choice? Please. Planescape: Torment had that. Baldur's Gate 2 had that. Fallout had that. Morrowind Didn't have that. Morrowind had a world that was absolutely stagnant, static, and downright boring. Hell, you couldn't even get it to react by finishing the MAIN QUEST.

 

[HardCode]

Yeah, TES games don't do shit to react to your character. I was the Arch-Mage of the Mage's Guild, and I stumbled upon a group of Mage's Guild members in Bal Fell, a Daedric ruin. They were just standing there. Could any of the dialog options allow me, the Arch-Mage, to ask them what the fuck they were doing there? You click "Mage's Guild" in the wiki and they tell you what it is. My fucking character is the damn guild master. Why are they giving me the n00b definition???

The other "greatest" thing is running into a Morag Tong NPC:

Background: What I do is my own affair.
My trade: We are the Morag Tong, the traditional assassins ... blah blah

WTF? You won't tell me, but you do tell me?

Dialog, which SHOULD be driven by your characters actions/choices, is complete ass in MW and will be complete ass in Oblivion too, since nothing has changed for the better except the pretty pictures and animations.

 

[kingcomrade]

It always bugged me in Fallout, as you walked around in massive power armor, nobody seemed to notice.

 

[Section8]

lol. The guy I DM'd for who actually told me to do that once would get a laugh out of THAT one. In all three groups I've played in, I was the only person that gave a damn about roleplay (hence my exit from those groups).

That's actually a pretty good analogy as to why many of us here were disappointed by Morrowind, and very skeptical about Oblivion. Morrowind was like a gigantic roleplaying group in which the player was the only one who gave a damn about roleplaying.

Player: "Well met friend, I'm an arcanist seeking companionship and adventure. Can I assume by the longsword you wear on your belt that you are a warrior by trade?"

NPC: "The questing knight, the conquering overlord, the king's champion, the elite foot solider, the hardened mercenary, and the bandit king -- all are fighters. Fighters can be stalwart defenders of those in need, cruel marauders, or gutsy adventurers. Some are among the land's best souls, willing to face death for the greater good. Others are among the worst, those who have no qualms about killing for private gain, or even for sport. Fighters who are not actively adventuring may be soldiers, guards, bodyguards, champions, or criminal enforcers. An adventuring fighter might call himself a warrior, a mercenary, a thug, or simply an adventurer."

Player: "...Is that a direct quote from the player's handbook? You're supposed to adopt some kind of personality here. Be one of those things you just described! <ahem> Now, I'll ask again, be thou a warrior by trade, friend?"

NPC: "The questing knight, the conquering overlord, the king's champion, the elite foot solider, the hardened mercenary, and the bandit king -- all are fighters. Fighters can be stalwart defenders of those in need, cruel marauders, or gutsy adventurers. Some are among the land's best souls, willing to face death for the greater good. Others are among the worst, those who have no qualms about killing for private gain, or even for sport. Fighters who are not actively adventuring may be soldiers, guards, bodyguards, champions, or criminal enforcers. An adventuring fighter might call himself a warrior, a mercenary, a thug, or simply an adventurer."

Player: ...

But see, when I'm sitting in front of a computer by myself, the whole "interact with other people as if you were someone else" thing is just a wee bit hard to pull off. Instead, what computer games are good at in RPG terms is presenting you with a series of challenges and obstacles, and you design a character with various abilities to use to overcome those obstacles. Computers are a horrible medium for conveying the type of play you get in PnP. Especially in the MMO department.

True to an extent, but it can still be done to good effect in a single player CRPG (such as Fallout, Torment or Arcanum) and it is the exact attitude that "what computer games are good at in RPG terms is presenting you with a series of challenges and obstacles, and you design a character with various abilities to use to overcome those obstacles" that ruins MMOGs for roleplayers, because the playerbase has been inculcated into thinking RPGs are about statistical progression and ePenises.

 

[Levski 1912]

Yet another gem at the official forums.

http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=225191

This guy seems tame in comparison to the Codex. And since his argument is actually based on facts and rationality, he gets ruthlessy criticized.

 

[obediah]

...do you wannna play an unstable game that crashes on you all the time with less then 30 Fps?

This person obviously hasn't played a TES game at release.

 

[Levski 1912]

...do you wannna play an unstable game that crashes on you all the time with less then 30 Fps?

This person obviously hasn't played a TES game at release.

Actually I admire MW in that aspect. When I bought it at release, it managed to crash every 1:30 hours like clockwork. It was like watching the Swiss at work. Simply amazing.

 

[Perishiko]

...do you wannna play an unstable game that crashes on you all the time with less then 30 Fps?

This person obviously hasn't played a TES game at release.

Actually I admire MW in that aspect. When I bought it at release, it managed to crash every 1:30 hours like clockwork. It was like watching the Swiss at work. Simply amazing.

What's ironic with me is:

The first time playing MW, i didn't save often and it crashed all the time...

Second attempt, i saved all the time... the game didn't even stutter.

Dumb luck, or not...?

 

[Solik]

as opposed to exploring identical dungeons, clicking on identical monsters until they die, and get dragged on linear quests where you have no say what-so-ever in the outcomes of?

Those are all valid complaints about a game's dungeon design, combat system, and quest system. But they're not really remotely related to the topic at hand. Rather than address what I said, you just went on an anti-Morrowind rant, for reasons that are beyond me.

None of those things are why I liked Morrowind, no. I'd like to point out, though, that Oblivion is being criticized ahead of time for addressing each and every one of those issues.

A game environment that "reacts to your actions"? Huh? Did morrowind have that?

To an extent, but primarily through its gameplay mechanics rather than through its dialogue. The main problem with that was that its skills were rather unbalanced, so that didn't work out really all that well either.

I don't recall claiming that Morrowind is the shining example of an RPG, though. Instead, I was responding to someone's question, which had absolutely nothing to do with Morrowind in any way. Nice try though?

and it is the exact attitude that "what computer games are good at in RPG terms is presenting you with a series of challenges and obstacles, and you design a character with various abilities to use to overcome those obstacles" that ruins MMOGs for roleplayers, because the playerbase has been inculcated into thinking RPGs are about statistical progression and ePenises.

Maybe. I prefer to blame the Inverse Rule of Roleplay -- the more people you have, the lower the quality of roleplay. That and the fact that little kids play them.