Tendo City

I agree with Johnny, you are weird and (very) dumb, Brian. And in case you forgot, not everyone can click on links to game sites!

You're the only one like that, and as I said anyone intrested in the subject wouldn't have to click the link to know what the topic was.

And besides, the topic very quickly changed topics, so even if I had called the thread "Sid Meier's Pirates!: Live the Life", it'd be somewhat inaccurate when the main topic is Civilization.

So either talk about Civilization or go away. You and GR both. :) (Unless someone actually got Pirates!?)

Quote:*cough*Simcity > Civilization*cough*

Oh yeah, that arguement. You're still wrong, and your inexperience with Civ still gives you no legs to stand on with making a case. Sorry. :)

HA! ABF is the one telling me that it's only his opinion that he likes Rush more than all of Rare's N64 games and that I should stop making fun of him for it, and now he's telling you that you're "wrong" for liking SC more than Civilization!

What a hypocrite!

Quote:Oh yeah, that arguement. You're still wrong, and your inexperience with Civ still gives you no legs to stand on with making a case. Sorry.

But you said that Morrowind wasn't a great game based solely on playing the first two games and some dumb article from Gamespy. If you can make assumptions then so can I! *hits ABF* What now?!

Quote:But you said that Morrowind wasn't a great game based solely on playing the first two games and some dumb article from Gamespy. If you can make assumptions then so can I! *hits ABF* What now?!

Bad analogy. I have PLAYED the first two games of a three game series. You have played only the first one of a three game series. And, by your own admission, not much at all.

Quote:HA! ABF is the one telling me that it's only his opinion that he likes Rush more than all of Rare's N64 games and that I should stop making fun of him for it, and now he's telling you that you're "wrong" for liking SC more than Civilization!

What a hypocrite!

You are so incredibly desperate to take every possible line you can to attack me... it's so pitiful (and mean)... I thought it was assumed that we remembered some details of the previous arguement over this... such as how I said that he hasn't played much Civ. If he'd played a lot of Civ and still thought that then I'd ask 'why', but he hasn't so he doesn't have much to say except "I love SimCity". Which is obviously true but has little to do with comparing it to Civilization.

I have played many hours of those games you mentioned so I am quite well qualified enough to offer my opinion on the issue.

Quote:And, by your own admission, not much at all.

I didn't play it for hundreds of hours or anything like that, but I played it for more than just a few hours.

Civ and SimCity have one decent comparison: the original game was pretty good and a classic, the second game blew it away in every way, and then the third one regressed some. Civ III is better comparitively than SimCity 3000 was, but still... IMO anyway it doesn't match up.

Quote:Bad analogy. I have PLAYED the first two games of a three game series. You have played only the first one of a three game series. And, by your own admission, not much at all.

How's that an analogy?

Quote:You are so incredibly desperate to take every possible line you can to attack me... it's so pitiful (and mean)... I thought it was assumed that we remembered some details of the previous arguement over this... such as how I said that he hasn't played much Civ. If he'd played a lot of Civ and still thought that then I'd ask 'why', but he hasn't so he doesn't have much to say except "I love SimCity". Which is obviously true but has little to do with comparing it to Civilization.

I have played many hours of those games you mentioned so I am quite well qualified enough to offer my opinion on the issue.

I just love pointing out your hypocrisy. You need some ego deflating.

And GR not having played Civilization for very long is still better than you liking those crappy games that you did play for very long. :p

Quote:How's that an analogy?

He was saying that the two arguements are the same... Arena/Daggerfall:Morrowind::CivI/II:CivIII. I said that the analogy is flawed. Then I went on to imply another thing: GR, if you've only played Civ I you can only compare it to SimCity. Not 2000 or 3000 or 4, only the first one. You could only compare the later ones if you'd played the later Civ games. And even then it's problematic because your knowledge of how great the later games are might influence your opinion on the first SimCity (which was pretty good, certainly, but had definite issues (Civ I did too, of course, compared to the later games in that series)).

Quote:And GR not having played Civilization for very long is still better than you liking those crappy games that you did play for very long.

Civilization is one of the most beloved series on the PC and your insulting it with absolutely no basis is probably a new low for you even considering how low you have sank on previous occasions. Idiotic, so utterly wrong that I probably should not reply, and more proof that you care more about insulting me than you do about using your brain or considering what you are saying.

I believe OB1 was insulting Arena and Daggerfall which, from what you've said about them, don't really sound like they're really all that great.

Quote:your knowledge of how great the later games are might influence your opinion on the first SimCity

Actually, no. I played the first game, it wasn't that great. The second game and the fourth though were exceedingly awesome games which I put HUNDREDS of hours into.

Quote:He was saying that the two arguements are the same... Arena/Daggerfall:Morrowind::CivI/II:CivIII. I said that the analogy is flawed. Then I went on to imply another thing: GR, if you've only played Civ I you can only compare it to SimCity. Not 2000 or 3000 or 4, only the first one. You could only compare the later ones if you'd played the later Civ games. And even then it's problematic because your knowledge of how great the later games are might influence your opinion on the first SimCity (which was pretty good, certainly, but had definite issues (Civ I did too, of course, compared to the later games in that series)).

They're not the same, but they're about as bad as each other. You constantly try to criticize games without having played them (morrowind, mgs3). Playing previous games in the series most certainly does not make it any better! Especially when there's such a huge difference between them. You're a much bigger fool than GR is.

Quote:Civilization is one of the most beloved series on the PC and your insulting it with absolutely no basis is probably a new low for you even considering how low you have sank on previous occasions. Idiotic, so utterly wrong that I probably should not reply, and more proof that you care more about insulting me than you do about using your brain or considering what you are saying.

I wasn't calling Civ crappy, genius. I was referring to all of those crappy N64 games you like.

Quote:I believe OB1 was insulting Arena and Daggerfall which, from what you've said about them, don't really sound like they're really all that great.

They are very similar to the third game, all accounts agree, just not as technically advanced and without the fully unique terrain... but whatever, we went over this already.

Quote:They're not the same, but they're about as bad as each other. You constantly try to criticize games without having played them (morrowind, mgs3). Playing previous games in the series most certainly does not make it any better! Especially when there's such a huge difference between them. You're a much bigger fool than GR is.

When the series doesn't change too dramatically playing past games definitely counts for something. Like, since GR has said that he actually has played Civilization some that means I should give some more credence to his opinion... not fully because he hasn't played the really good games in the series (like I said, think of it like SimCity 1 vs the second game), but definitely some.

Quote:Actually, no. I played the first game, it wasn't that great. The second game and the fourth though were exceedingly awesome games which I put HUNDREDS of hours into.

I thought SimCity was a great game... we had it well before the second game came out of course so at the time it didn't have a better competitor in the genre. It's just like the later games, but with less variety... but it is a great game. It had some funny stuff too like that when you had too much pollution the monster that would attack looked like Godzilla (as opposed to the UFO)... :) Now, SimCity struggles when compared to the second game, but that is usually true with any major PC series that spans that amount of time. And the original SimCity definitely has a place in gaming history.

As for how that relates to Civilization... hmm, I don't know... I haven't played the original Civilization in probably eight years at least, and even then it wasn't all that much. I remember that I liked it, but that various things made me like Civ II a LOT more (units have hit points, for instance)...

Quote:They are very similar to the third game, all accounts agree, just not as technically advanced and without the fully unique terrain... but whatever, we went over this already.

And you know this how? You never played the game, stupid!

Quote:When the series doesn't change too dramatically playing past games definitely counts for something. Like, since GR has said that he actually has played Civilization some that means I should give some more credence to his opinion... not fully because he hasn't played the really good games in the series (like I said, think of it like SimCity 1 vs the second game), but definitely some.

It's the exact same situation, actually. The difference being that GR never said that the games he didn't play were bad. You DID.

As you said in that other thread to me, OB1, this is your last chance, for this thread at least. Act like a normal considerate person or be ignored and revealed as the person driven to attack me for not defendable reasons that you are. (okay, after this post I don't expect you to act like how I wish you would, so this is more about venting my frusterations than actually expecting any change... but with you there are just SO MANY frusterations to vent that I can't help myself. Especially when if this continues it stands a very good chance of destroying any chance of this thread staying remotely on topic with another of your stupid crusades to convince everyone else here that you hate me as much as you sure try to act like you do (I don't think that it has much of anything to do with the actual validity of the points I make anymore. I thought that once, but you have proven me wrong.)...

I probably should tone this down, but I won't. You've exhausted both my patience and my reserve of excuses for how you could be making the arguements you try to make about what i say without it being 95% purely because I am the one making the arguement.

:troll:

Posting nonsensical arguements that are only here to get me angry, like your whole presence in this thread, isn't okay. You're very lucky that TC has no moderation because with all of the stuff you've pulled over the years I'm sure that at most forums you'd have been banned a long time back for acting like you do... posting to solely anger others or arguing against a point just because I make it is stupid. You should know better. By this point you obviously don't, but you should...

Quote:And you know this how? You never played the game, stupid!

Far more than enough opinions from ... pretty much every source I have read that has played all of the TES games... it's really not at all a contraversial statement to say that "TES3 is a whole lot like TES1 and TES2 just with some new features". Based on what I have read I am sure that almost anyone who has played more than one of the games would agree. You only don't because you have some idiotic drive to yell at me for every imagined reason you possibly can.

Now, some experience with the general idea is probably good, which is why I waited until playing Arena and Daggerfall before commenting more about Morrowind, but the only reason that you do not understand how similar the games are is because you have not played Arena or Daggerfall. That's the only one. So to your arguement that I don't understand Morrowind, I can equally respond that you do not understand Arana nad Daggerfall and as I made clear almost all of the arguements that I were making about the series (the whole series, not any one game!) were based on those games. Now, I'd only argue that to a limited extent as long as you'd read anything about Arena or Daggerfall because I definitely believe that reading about games (reviews, previews, discussions by players, etc) counts towards knowledge of the game, but I could.

Quote:It's the exact same situation, actually. The difference being that GR never said that the games he didn't play were bad. You DID.

First, I'll say for the millionth time that (given that we are talking about Morrowind), I never said that it was a bad game. I would not say that a game I'm sure is pretty good is bad, that would be stupid! I criticized some elements of the fundamental gameplay style of the TES series! That is a totally different question from saying that 'TES is bad". I guess you can't understand the difference, but to most people it should be immediately clear. Criticizing how it does things is not saying the game is bad. That arguement is totally nonsensical... you're only sticking with it so long because ... well, because as I said you're determined to attack me for everything, including and especially things I didn't say or mean.

One other thing I'd like to address supports my general theme here. I said, repeatedly, in the TES arguements that one of the things I wanted most was for someone to look through my criticism, compare them to the facts in Morrowind, and tell me which are still there and which have changed. Getting anyone to do that was really hard with you constantly yelling at me (without of course really answering any of the questions I raised, as actually debating the points I talk about doesn't seem to be a very high priority for you), but GR (and others?) finally did some of that. It was nice as it helped show me where the series had changed from the first two games I was discussing and, it is easy to extrapolate, how those changes would influence my opinion of the series.

Going back to thiis specific quote, by any standards (that is even if we ignore my first point) it is simply not true. You seem to think so, but if you go look at what I was saying 99% of the time it most definitely was not making judgements backed up with no facts (if I said this in relation to GR about Civ, it was probably either in ignorance of the fact that he has played Civ I or relating to features that did not exist in the first game). And continuing on that note, unlike me I would be quite surprised if GR has read much about Civ II or Civ III... reading about a game DOES count as a source of knowledge about it, and I have definitely read about Morrowind (in addition to listening to conversations about it). So I am sure that my knowledge level about Morrowind is higher than GR's about Civilization II or III, which defintely plays into the conversation. Not as the main factor perhaps, but it matters. GR's comment that he didn't like the first SimCity highlights how that point matters. Older PC games have many technical reasons that make them in many cases tougher for people to like.

And with that, unless you shock me and have something intelligent or considerate to say, I don't think I'll reply to any more of your usual nearly baseless thread-ruining attacks. GR is fine, as he's actually making some reasonable responses to what I say, but you? You, as usual, are not. I don't understand why you act like this, but it is not pleasant , gets nothing done, and does not benefit anyone involved. So act like a decent human being (like most everyone else on this board does) or go away.

For point of comparison look at GR here. He does have some insults (done, it seems to me, in a much more joking manner than yours), but that's just copying (or inciting) you, it seems... but when it comes to an actual discusion when he posts he says something pertinent that obviously was written after considering what I had said. You don't do that. Now, is GR perfect? Of course not. After all, his main arguement is about how a series he has not played much is worse than one he has played a huge amount of (this does not directly compare to me because I was not saying any specific series that was better than TES... I was talking in much more general gameplay terms. But if you want to say "You're thinking Baldur's Gate vs. TES and have played ten times more BG so it influences your opinion", you'd probably have a point... It does. But I've never said that TES is bad or that I dislike the TES games or any such thing.! This is bound to be a flawed arguement. But still, at least he's tried to frame it as an arguement and mostly to stay within the bounds of decent jumps of logic... but I have very little intrest in more of your not thought through and obviously horribly incorrect attacks coming along and finishing off any chance for this thread to be saved.

Note how, like usual, everything was fine until you decided to get involved with some random insult-slinging in my direction?



ASM.

Quote:1. If you conquere the Barbarian settlement , You wont get anything from its people , No Tech and no maps , No Gifts. Since you have just agressively annexed the city you just eliminated all males of fighting age so no special units. The only reason you should conquere them is if they are too savage and hostile to be reasoned with or too deny a rival world power.

A simple way of implementing it is following what CIV 3 added already with cultural straits , If you havent noticed when you pick your race they have a staus like Scientific ,industrial ,Militaristic,Religious,Exspansionist,Agricultural,Sea faring. Already each Civilization in the third game has two of the above types , The Barbarians would be the same , Warlike Barbarians might respect a warrior nation more then farmers and priests same goes with the rest.I can already see the Sea People as exspansionist sea faring people,As long as one strait is common with your civ and the barbarians you could be abled to trade and intergrate with them if not, They will mock you or be disinterested.

As for Wonders Big wonder more dramatic movies , Small minor ones you get the drift.

In conquests some of the wonders can give you exclusive rights to create a special unit , The Statue of Zeus lets you have Ancient Cavalry and You get Cruisaders for another one later on.

Yeah, minor wonders might just deserve a static picture like Civ III has... they aren't Great Wonders of the World, after all. But the major ones should. Oh, and exclusive units from wonders? Neat, it's a decent extension of what wonders have done before...

As for Barbarians, of course you don't get maps or tech. There are a lot of them so if you got tech from them it'd be horribly unbalancing... I would not want to see that. Gold and occasional units are fine... and probably more accurate, too... It's wiping out villages of barbarians and scattering the survivors... now, I will say one thing -- these should stop in the later times. Once it's the modern age, there is little excuse to say where barbarians would be coming from... but even if the world was fully explored in premodern times because of the technology differences it'd be definitely possible to have barbarians. But a stop to randomly spawning barbarians at some point would be good, if it's not in the game already... it's clear that you wish they had more of a role in the game, but think about this. Suppose that they make them a stronger part of the game. You'll probably ask for more... so why not just go all the way and say where this line leads: you want more opponenets in the game and eight isn't enough. Maybe that isn't a complete picture of your opinion, but if you implement everything you say the line between barbarian and civilizations would be quite blurred indeed... and the point of having the civilizations seperate is to note how they are different (and they are, in real history too! Perhaps tribes are undervalued here, but the game is about lasting culture and that comes from civilizations, not barbarian tribes). Also, cities for barbarians wouldn't make as much sense. Most of them didn't really HAVE big cities, just scattered tribes... which is the point of all the small villages and randomly generated barbarians... and also a lot of them would not use diplomatic channels. Look at history! Barbarian invasions into civilized lands happened constantly. If anything the biggest problem in the game isn't not giving them enough diplomatic options, it's not making them powerful enough to take over cities... because in real history that happened all the time (and then they would get assimilated into the population of the region, generally, making a somewhat different but still mostly based on the past civilization culture)

Along those lines though, there should be trade with barbarians (this is a definite historical fact) and perhaps in later times some simple kinds of peace treaties... though they should break them all the time in most cases, I think (and if they don't you can, which would impact your international diplomatic rating a whole lot less than breaking a treaty with a real nation).

Simcity rules! Peace out, ya'll! *leaves to ruin another thread* It's what I'm best at!

P.S. Simcity 4 > Civilization 1. That's RIGHT! *okay I'm really leaving this time, so go back to talking about whatever it was you were talking about before I rudely interupted by pointing out ABF's inability to...ALRIGHT I'm leaving, okay?!*

Quote:As you said in that other thread to me, OB1, this is your last chance, for this thread at least. Act like a normal considerate person or be ignored and revealed as the person driven to attack me for not defendable reasons that you are. (okay, after this post I don't expect you to act like how I wish you would, so this is more about venting my frusterations than actually expecting any change... but with you there are just SO MANY frusterations to vent that I can't help myself. Especially when if this continues it stands a very good chance of destroying any chance of this thread staying remotely on topic with another of your stupid crusades to convince everyone else here that you hate me as much as you sure try to act like you do (I don't think that it has much of anything to do with the actual validity of the points I make anymore. I thought that once, but you have proven me wrong.)...

I probably should tone this down, but I won't. You've exhausted both my patience and my reserve of excuses for how you could be making the arguements you try to make about what i say without it being 95% purely because I am the one making the arguement.



Posting nonsensical arguements that are only here to get me angry, like your whole presence in this thread, isn't okay. You're very lucky that TC has no moderation because with all of the stuff you've pulled over the years I'm sure that at most forums you'd have been banned a long time back for acting like you do... posting to solely anger others or arguing against a point just because I make it is stupid. You should know better. By this point you obviously don't, but you should...

How did I miss this before? It must have been when TC was down.

Anyhow, you're an idiot. You know I'm right so you're acting like a child.

Quote:Far more than enough opinions from ... pretty much every source I have read that has played all of the TES games... it's really not at all a contraversial statement to say that "TES3 is a whole lot like TES1 and TES2 just with some new features". Based on what I have read I am sure that almost anyone who has played more than one of the games would agree. You only don't because you have some idiotic drive to yell at me for every imagined reason you possibly can.

Now, some experience with the general idea is probably good, which is why I waited until playing Arena and Daggerfall before commenting more about Morrowind, but the only reason that you do not understand how similar the games are is because you have not played Arena or Daggerfall. That's the only one. So to your arguement that I don't understand Morrowind, I can equally respond that you do not understand Arana nad Daggerfall and as I made clear almost all of the arguements that I were making about the series (the whole series, not any one game!) were based on those games. Now, I'd only argue that to a limited extent as long as you'd read anything about Arena or Daggerfall because I definitely believe that reading about games (reviews, previews, discussions by players, etc) counts towards knowledge of the game, but I could.

Again, this is you not forming an opinion on your own, but taking one from someone else. This is very sad and it's made me wonder if some of the idiotic things you've argued for in the past have actually been your own opinions.

Quote:First, I'll say for the millionth time that (given that we are talking about Morrowind), I never said that it was a bad game. I would not say that a game I'm sure is pretty good is bad, that would be stupid! I criticized some elements of the fundamental gameplay style of the TES series! That is a totally different question from saying that 'TES is bad". I guess you can't understand the difference, but to most people it should be immediately clear. Criticizing how it does things is not saying the game is bad. That arguement is totally nonsensical... you're only sticking with it so long because ... well, because as I said you're determined to attack me for everything, including and especially things I didn't say or mean.

One other thing I'd like to address supports my general theme here. I said, repeatedly, in the TES arguements that one of the things I wanted most was for someone to look through my criticism, compare them to the facts in Morrowind, and tell me which are still there and which have changed. Getting anyone to do that was really hard with you constantly yelling at me (without of course really answering any of the questions I raised, as actually debating the points I talk about doesn't seem to be a very high priority for you), but GR (and others?) finally did some of that. It was nice as it helped show me where the series had changed from the first two games I was discussing and, it is easy to extrapolate, how those changes would influence my opinion of the series.

Going back to thiis specific quote, by any standards (that is even if we ignore my first point) it is simply not true. You seem to think so, but if you go look at what I was saying 99% of the time it most definitely was not making judgements backed up with no facts (if I said this in relation to GR about Civ, it was probably either in ignorance of the fact that he has played Civ I or relating to features that did not exist in the first game). And continuing on that note, unlike me I would be quite surprised if GR has read much about Civ II or Civ III... reading about a game DOES count as a source of knowledge about it, and I have definitely read about Morrowind (in addition to listening to conversations about it). So I am sure that my knowledge level about Morrowind is higher than GR's about Civilization II or III, which defintely plays into the conversation. Not as the main factor perhaps, but it matters. GR's comment that he didn't like the first SimCity highlights how that point matters. Older PC games have many technical reasons that make them in many cases tougher for people to like.

And with that, unless you shock me and have something intelligent or considerate to say, I don't think I'll reply to any more of your usual nearly baseless thread-ruining attacks. GR is fine, as he's actually making some reasonable responses to what I say, but you? You, as usual, are not. I don't understand why you act like this, but it is not pleasant , gets nothing done, and does not benefit anyone involved. So act like a decent human being (like most everyone else on this board does) or go away.

For point of comparison look at GR here. He does have some insults (done, it seems to me, in a much more joking manner than yours), but that's just copying (or inciting) you, it seems... but when it comes to an actual discusion when he posts he says something pertinent that obviously was written after considering what I had said. You don't do that. Now, is GR perfect? Of course not. After all, his main arguement is about how a series he has not played much is worse than one he has played a huge amount of (this does not directly compare to me because I was not saying any specific series that was better than TES... I was talking in much more general gameplay terms. But if you want to say "You're thinking Baldur's Gate vs. TES and have played ten times more BG so it influences your opinion", you'd probably have a point... It does. But I've never said that TES is bad or that I dislike the TES games or any such thing.! This is bound to be a flawed arguement. But still, at least he's tried to frame it as an arguement and mostly to stay within the bounds of decent jumps of logic... but I have very little intrest in more of your not thought through and obviously horribly incorrect attacks coming along and finishing off any chance for this thread to be saved.

Note how, like usual, everything was fine until you decided to get involved with some random insult-slinging in my direction?

Oh how the tables have turned! Your spend your entire time here trying to ruin my threads, and when I get a chance to do the same to do (though that wasn't my intention, and I've been the only level-headed one among the two of us here) you can't stand it.

Seriously, this is the same situation as the TES thing. GR is in the right.

Hey, you missed my post. Or are you ignoring it? Hehe.

Ignoring is for the ignorant!!

...

...

...

...

In short, I do not go in to your threads well into a nice discussion and say "I agree with person Y because OB1 is a moron". That is what you did here. End of discussion.

Quote:Again, this is you not forming an opinion on your own, but taking one from someone else. This is very sad and it's made me wonder if some of the idiotic things you've argued for in the past have actually been your own opinions.

There is nothing wrong with incorporating some of other people's opinions into your arguement if they help you explain your case.

Quote:How did I miss this before? It must have been when TC was down.

Anyhow, you're an idiot. You know I'm right so you're acting like a child.

No worse than you are. You act so superior but at best you are acting no better... though to decide who is one way or the other I'd have to rely on others since of course neither of us are a fair judge of it.

And I thought you were being intelligent by not saying anything and leaving... guess I was wrong. :(

Quote:Oh how the tables have turned! Your spend your entire time here trying to ruin my threads, and when I get a chance to do the same to do (though that wasn't my intention, and I've been the only level-headed one among the two of us here) you can't stand it.

Seriously, this is the same situation as the TES thing. GR is in the right.

It is incredibly, INCREDIBLY stupid for you to act like that. Look: who is arguing? Is it me and only me? No. It is you too. Yet it's all my fault because of course the great OB1 can do no wrong... um...

You have the nerve to say that you WEREN'T entering this thread for the sole purpose of bashing me? Do you really think I'm stupid enough to believe that? Look at your posts in this thread. What are the common themes? Let's see.

Now I'll quote all of your posts in this thread. It should be easy to see the common themes.

Quote:I agree with Johnny, you are weird and (very) dumb, Brian. And in case you forgot, not everyone can click on links to game sites!

Quote:Quote:
Ah, but I digress, annoying ABF is fun because he's such a weird person.

Precisely!

Quote:
Because you want me to go away, I'm going to stay right here. *stays right here*

Haha, good idea!

Quote:
This thread's boring. I'm leaving. *leaves*

... well that was quick.

Quote:HA! ABF is the one telling me that it's only his opinion that he likes Rush more than all of Rare's N64 games and that I should stop making fun of him for it, and now he's telling you that you're "wrong" for liking SC more than Civilization!

What a hypocrite!

Quote:Quote:
Bad analogy. I have PLAYED the first two games of a three game series. You have played only the first one of a three game series. And, by your own admission, not much at all.

How's that an analogy?

Quote:
You are so incredibly desperate to take every possible line you can to attack me... it's so pitiful (and mean)... I thought it was assumed that we remembered some details of the previous arguement over this... such as how I said that he hasn't played much Civ. If he'd played a lot of Civ and still thought that then I'd ask 'why', but he hasn't so he doesn't have much to say except "I love SimCity". Which is obviously true but has little to do with comparing it to Civilization.
I have played many hours of those games you mentioned so I am quite well qualified enough to offer my opinion on the issue.

I just love pointing out your hypocrisy. You need some ego deflating.

And GR not having played Civilization for very long is still better than you liking those crappy games that you did play for very long.

Quote:Quote:
He was saying that the two arguements are the same... Arena/Daggerfall:Morrowind::CivI/II:CivIII. I said that the analogy is flawed. Then I went on to imply another thing: GR, if you've only played Civ I you can only compare it to SimCity. Not 2000 or 3000 or 4, only the first one. You could only compare the later ones if you'd played the later Civ games. And even then it's problematic because your knowledge of how great the later games are might influence your opinion on the first SimCity (which was pretty good, certainly, but had definite issues (Civ I did too, of course, compared to the later games in that series)).

They're not the same, but they're about as bad as each other. You constantly try to criticize games without having played them (morrowind, mgs3). Playing previous games in the series most certainly does not make it any better! Especially when there's such a huge difference between them. You're a much bigger fool than GR is.

Quote:
Civilization is one of the most beloved series on the PC and your insulting it with absolutely no basis is probably a new low for you even considering how low you have sank on previous occasions. Idiotic, so utterly wrong that I probably should not reply, and more proof that you care more about insulting me than you do about using your brain or considering what you are saying.

I wasn't calling Civ crappy, genius. I was referring to all of those crappy N64 games you like.

Quote:Quote:
They are very similar to the third game, all accounts agree, just not as technically advanced and without the fully unique terrain... but whatever, we went over this already.

And you know this how? You never played the game, stupid!
Quote:
When the series doesn't change too dramatically playing past games definitely counts for something. Like, since GR has said that he actually has played Civilization some that means I should give some more credence to his opinion... not fully because he hasn't played the really good games in the series (like I said, think of it like SimCity 1 vs the second game), but definitely some.

It's the exact same situation, actually. The difference being that GR never said that the games he didn't play were bad. You DID.

And last the one that I'm replying to here. Now, what do they have in common?

1) very short. Often less than a line.
2) all insult me
3) took things out of context or, when that doesn't work, made up facts to find excuses to bash me where the insults make no sense (see: your first post for starters, or your idiotic mention of a comparison to n64 games (which I notice that you ignored my effective reply to)). For inventing facts, look no further than the Morrowind arguement references. You pretty much say that I was saying that I didn't like Morrowind without playing it. That of course is not even remotely true, as I tried to explain a million times (to the response of your not caring that I could explain myself and more misrepresentation to keep your "case" going), but I won't go into that again...
4) no real points are made except to call me stupid 95% of the time.
5) related to #s 1, 2, 3, and 4, nonsensical comments that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. See: references trying to connect my opinion on N64 games to my opinion on Civ and SimCity. It makes very little sense as an actual arguement, but you don't even bother to try to prove it to even THAT level...

And finally, 6) creating arguements where they had not existed previously due soley to your intentional idiocy. This thread was going quite well and then you post sheerly to attack me... I do not do that in your threads. If the result is similar (arguement) it isn't because I intentionally post in your threads to anger you... at least not almost all the time. Generally it's because I'm trying to talk about the subject but you take what I am saying and twist it into something you make vehement statements about, which I can't help but try to rebut... the more I think about it the more I realize that with you the smarter approach would be to do like DJ mostly did and stop talking to you when you go into arguement mode. You will never listen anyway so all it does is gets people annoyed and wastes time...

Oh, if you'd like to try to refute that go ahead to go find some post of yours that I "ruined" by posting posts that were pure personal insults and had nothing to do with the subject at hand, but I really don't think that there are many, if there are any at all...

Quote:In short, I do not go in to your threads well into a nice discussion and say "I agree with person Y because OB1 is a moron". That is what you did here. End of discussion.

Actually what I did was see that GR was right, and see how much of a hypocrite you were, and then took action. It only looks like I'm doing this just to spite you since you're wrong so darn often.

Quote:There is nothing wrong with incorporating some of other people's opinions into your arguement if they help you explain your case.

Huh, funny how that's not the case here, isn't it? What you did was completely take someone else's opinion and try to pass it off as your own. The problem with this excuse is that you had zero experience with Morrowind, so there was no incorporating of opinions here. You simple took an entire opinion and made it your own.

Very, very, very... pathetic. Very.

Quote:No worse than you are. You act so superior but at best you are acting no better... though to decide who is one way or the other I'd have to rely on others since of course neither of us are a fair judge of it.

And I thought you were being intelligent by not saying anything and leaving... guess I was wrong.

I'm actually the middle-man here, between you and GR. I saw that you were being hypocritical so I decided to help defend GR.

Quote:Yet it's all my fault because of course the great OB1 can do no wrong

I'm glad you finally got something right!

Quote:You have the nerve to say that you WEREN'T entering this thread for the sole purpose of bashing me? Do you really think I'm stupid enough to believe that? Look at your posts in this thread. What are the common themes? Let's see.

Now I'll quote all of your posts in this thread. It should be easy to see the common themes.

Quote:And last the one that I'm replying to here. Now, what do they have in common?

1) very short. Often less than a line.
2) all insult me
3) took things out of context or, when that doesn't work, made up facts to find excuses to bash me where the insults make no sense (see: your first post for starters, or your idiotic mention of a comparison to n64 games (which I notice that you ignored my effective reply to)). For inventing facts, look no further than the Morrowind arguement references. You pretty much say that I was saying that I didn't like Morrowind without playing it. That of course is not even remotely true, as I tried to explain a million times (to the response of your not caring that I could explain myself and more misrepresentation to keep your "case" going), but I won't go into that again...
4) no real points are made except to call me stupid 95% of the time.
5) related to #s 1, 2, 3, and 4, nonsensical comments that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. See: references trying to connect my opinion on N64 games to my opinion on Civ and SimCity. It makes very little sense as an actual arguement, but you don't even bother to try to prove it to even THAT level...

And finally, 6) creating arguements where they had not existed previously due soley to your intentional idiocy. This thread was going quite well and then you post sheerly to attack me... I do not do that in your threads. If the result is similar (arguement) it isn't because I intentionally post in your threads to anger you... at least not almost all the time. Generally it's because I'm trying to talk about the subject but you take what I am saying and twist it into something you make vehement statements about, which I can't help but try to rebut... the more I think about it the more I realize that with you the smarter approach would be to do like DJ mostly did and stop talking to you when you go into arguement mode. You will never listen anyway so all it does is gets people annoyed and wastes time...

Oh, if you'd like to try to refute that go ahead to go find some post of yours that I "ruined" by posting posts that were pure personal insults and had nothing to do with the subject at hand, but I really don't think that there are many, if there are any at all...

Haha, well of course I want to annoy you, you've annoyed me so much in the past that you really can't blaim me. But it's also for a good reason, since you really are wrong about this entire thing. You're a huge hypocrite (and an even bigger moron), and I just wanted to point that out. Sure it's fun for me, but it's still right.

BTW I love how one of your reasons was that my posts were short.

Quote:Haha, well of course I want to annoy you, you've annoyed me so much in the past that you really can't blaim me. But it's also for a good reason, since you really are wrong about this entire thing. You're a huge hypocrite (and an even bigger moron), and I just wanted to point that out. Sure it's fun for me, but it's still right.

BTW I love how one of your reasons was that my posts were short.

In a thread like this very short implies not very well thought out implies that you aren't really thinking about what you're saying or really trying to be a serious part of the discussion. So yes, it is an issue worth mentioning.

Oh, and what's "this whole thing"? Every possible issue of the many that we're arguing about here? Obviously not. Civ/SimCity? I've said my thing and GR has said he won't play Civ to see what he thinks, so that's static with me having an obviously valid point about playing games (or games similar to games; on that subject I'd even count Civ: Call to Power as a decent test of if you liked the genre... or Master of Magic, or any of the others... not quite Civilization, but similar enough to give people the idea of the subgenre's gameplay.) before saying other games are better. (oh, before you say "this goes against my Morrowind arguement", my counter is already stated: Morrowind, despite numerous small-to-large changes, has inherently the same style of gameplay as the two games prior. Playing Arena doesn't leave you qualified to review Morrowind, but playing Arena and Daggerfall does leave you qualified to compare how TES goes about its game design to how Baldur's Gate, Fallout, or Torment does.)

Quote:Actually what I did was see that GR was right, and see how much of a hypocrite you were, and then took action. It only looks like I'm doing this just to spite you since you're wrong so darn often.

I doubt anyone here could look at that post and say "yes, he's trying to make a real point"...

Quote:I'm actually the middle-man here, between you and GR. I saw that you were being hypocritical so I decided to help defend GR.

The only good thing that came out of you entering this thread was that it led to GR saying (again?) that he had played Civ I a little. Which might have been said anyway, who knows, but that's the only thing... and as I said earlier, that increases his credibility a little on the issue. Of course then I made the point that in age and features and the rest Civ I is effectively compared to SimCity Classic, Civ II to SC2k, etc and he said he disliked SimCity Classic (at least in retrospect), so I'd still say "play Civ II and come back to me". And anyway, my main point has always been not that SimCity is a bad series (it's a great series! Very fun games!) but that I think Civilization is better. (and would stereotype SimCity andThe Sims as the casual gamer's strategy/simulation game and Civ II/III as a more hardcore gamer's strategy game... Warcraft is somewhere in between.)

As for Rush vs. Rare games, the main difference is obvious: I, and you, have played both lines of games for a decent amount of time. Which puts it squarely into the realm of opinion. I'd say the same about SimCity vs Civ (though I would still use the 'casual/hardcore' thing because it's true) if GR had said that he had Civ II or Alpha Centauri, you know.

Quote:Huh, funny how that's not the case here, isn't it? What you did was completely take someone else's opinion and try to pass it off as your own. The problem with this excuse is that you had zero experience with Morrowind, so there was no incorporating of opinions here. You simple took an entire opinion and made it your own.

Very, very, very... pathetic. Very.

There you go off on your normal "making-up-"facts" routine again. You know if you read anything I write that I quite definitely note when what I'm saying is based on what someone else wrote or if it's based on my own experience... you can imply that that's not true all you want but repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true. Though you've obviously never learned that lesson.

Essentially, here's the basis of your case against what I said about Morrowind: "you haven't played it and past experience in the series is irrelevant". Part one, that I haven't played it, is obviously true. Part two, I doubt that many people anywhere would back you up. That idea is just so clearly foolish that only someone as desperate as you to come up with something to visciously argue about would find fault in it... if you want me to be more clear, I will give two reasons to why that logic fails. First, I created the thread that spawned most of the arguement not to talk about Morrowind but to talk about Arena and a bit about Daggerfall and what my impressions of the series as it was shown in those games were. Did I later talk about Morrowind? Some. After you brought it up as the focus, mostly. And I mentioned some of my sources (further refuting some of your case). But mostly I was saying things like "the TES series" because I meant all of them... not a specific one. And these were only things that I was either sure were in all the games (yes you can know something about a game's features without playing it, especially on the not-very-detailed level I was talking about) or things that I was asking about. Because you see, the second reason major flaw in your case is that I was asking "please compare what I say about TES1 and TES2 to what you know about TES3 and tell me where the major differences are from what I describe". You refused to do that and instead bashed me to no end. (GR by the way did eventually answer some of my questions, but he didn't remember the game as well...) Why? Because you didn't want to be a nice participant in the thread, you wanted to ATTACKATTACKATTACK of of COURSE you skipped over the parts where I said the reasons for why I was making the post and what I wanted people to say about it...

Now, I did in part write that post in hopes you'd read it and respond, but I wasn't looking for an arguement like that. What I was thinking was that since I'd played the series now I had a much greater understanding of how it worked so I could talk much better about how that style of gameplay relates to more standard RPG gameplay styles, which is really the main issue here... and on that level the series has been very consistent. If you'd

In a comparison I'm sure I used before in this discussion, if someone said to me "I hated Warcraft II so I know I'll hate warcraft iii even though I haven't played it" I would say in part "try Warcraft III, you might be surprised", but more importantly I'd ask why they disliked Warcraft II because in so many ways WCII is just about the same as WCIII. If they hated stuff like the older-style interface, resolution, 2d graphics, small unit selection unit, etc. then certainly they might like war3. But if their problem was with the underlying concept of a Blizzard RTS, well, I wouldn't expect much from them and Warcraft III. The games are too similar despite their differences.

I am quite sure that The Elder Scrolls works the same way -- big changes from game to game, but the underlying gameplay themes and concepts remain the same. If they changed too much either there'd be fan outcry that I've never heard of or the series would have changed its name...

Quote:In a thread like this very short implies not very well thought out implies that you aren't really thinking about what you're saying or really trying to be a serious part of the discussion. So yes, it is an issue worth mentioning.

Oh, and what's "this whole thing"? Every possible issue of the many that we're arguing about here? Obviously not. Civ/SimCity? I've said my thing and GR has said he won't play Civ to see what he thinks, so that's static with me having an obviously valid point about playing games (or games similar to games; on that subject I'd even count Civ: Call to Power as a decent test of if you liked the genre... or Master of Magic, or any of the others... not quite Civilization, but similar enough to give people the idea of the subgenre's gameplay.) before saying other games are better. (oh, before you say "this goes against my Morrowind arguement", my counter is already stated: Morrowind, despite numerous small-to-large changes, has inherently the same style of gameplay as the two games prior. Playing Arena doesn't leave you qualified to review Morrowind, but playing Arena and Daggerfall does leave you qualified to compare how TES goes about its game design to how Baldur's Gate, Fallout, or Torment does.)

"This whole thing" is referring to you thinking that you're not a huge hypocrite.

Quote:I doubt anyone here could look at that post and say "yes, he's trying to make a real point"...

I've passed that point, actually. I've already proven you wrong, so now I'm having fun getting back at you.

Quote:The only good thing that came out of you entering this thread was that it led to GR saying (again?) that he had played Civ I a little. Which might have been said anyway, who knows, but that's the only thing... and as I said earlier, that increases his credibility a little on the issue. Of course then I made the point that in age and features and the rest Civ I is effectively compared to SimCity Classic, Civ II to SC2k, etc and he said he disliked SimCity Classic (at least in retrospect), so I'd still say "play Civ II and come back to me". And anyway, my main point has always been not that SimCity is a bad series (it's a great series! Very fun games!) but that I think Civilization is better. (and would stereotype SimCity andThe Sims as the casual gamer's strategy/simulation game and Civ II/III as a more hardcore gamer's strategy game... Warcraft is somewhere in between.)

As for Rush vs. Rare games, the main difference is obvious: I, and you, have played both lines of games for a decent amount of time. Which puts it squarely into the realm of opinion. I'd say the same about SimCity vs Civ (though I would still use the 'casual/hardcore' thing because it's true) if GR had said that he had Civ II or Alpha Centauri, you know.

Whiiich brings us back the original issue of you bashing Morrowind based off of ZERO playtime experience, whereas GR actually played some Civ!!

Quote:There you go off on your normal "making-up-"facts" routine again. You know if you read anything I write that I quite definitely note when what I'm saying is based on what someone else wrote or if it's based on my own experience... you can imply that that's not true all you want but repeating a lie doesn't make it any more true. Though you've obviously never learned that lesson.

Essentially, here's the basis of your case against what I said about Morrowind: "you haven't played it and past experience in the series is irrelevant". Part one, that I haven't played it, is obviously true. Part two, I doubt that many people anywhere would back you up. That idea is just so clearly foolish that only someone as desperate as you to come up with something to visciously argue about would find fault in it... if you want me to be more clear, I will give two reasons to why that logic fails. First, I created the thread that spawned most of the arguement not to talk about Morrowind but to talk about Arena and a bit about Daggerfall and what my impressions of the series as it was shown in those games were. Did I later talk about Morrowind? Some. After you brought it up as the focus, mostly. And I mentioned some of my sources (further refuting some of your case). But mostly I was saying things like "the TES series" because I meant all of them... not a specific one. And these were only things that I was either sure were in all the games (yes you can know something about a game's features without playing it, especially on the not-very-detailed level I was talking about) or things that I was asking about. Because you see, the second reason major flaw in your case is that I was asking "please compare what I say about TES1 and TES2 to what you know about TES3 and tell me where the major differences are from what I describe". You refused to do that and instead bashed me to no end. (GR by the way did eventually answer some of my questions, but he didn't remember the game as well...) Why? Because you didn't want to be a nice participant in the thread, you wanted to ATTACKATTACKATTACK of of COURSE you skipped over the parts where I said the reasons for why I was making the post and what I wanted people to say about it...

Now, I did in part write that post in hopes you'd read it and respond, but I wasn't looking for an arguement like that. What I was thinking was that since I'd played the series now I had a much greater understanding of how it worked so I could talk much better about how that style of gameplay relates to more standard RPG gameplay styles, which is really the main issue here... and on that level the series has been very consistent. If you'd

In a comparison I'm sure I used before in this discussion, if someone said to me "I hated Warcraft II so I know I'll hate warcraft iii even though I haven't played it" I would say in part "try Warcraft III, you might be surprised", but more importantly I'd ask why they disliked Warcraft II because in so many ways WCII is just about the same as WCIII. If they hated stuff like the older-style interface, resolution, 2d graphics, small unit selection unit, etc. then certainly they might like war3. But if their problem was with the underlying concept of a Blizzard RTS, well, I wouldn't expect much from them and Warcraft III. The games are too similar despite their differences.

I am quite sure that The Elder Scrolls works the same way -- big changes from game to game, but the underlying gameplay themes and concepts remain the same. If they changed too much either there'd be fan outcry that I've never heard of or the series would have changed its name...

I find it amazing how long you can stick to the same bullshit. Your theory that a person only needs to play one or two games in a series means that you automatically have a formed opinion on another entry into the series--without having played it!!--is really, really amazing to me. Seriously, I am at awe with you. I mean you have to realize just how retarded you sound, but you still stick to your guns! I salute you!!

To clarify:

What I have played of Simcity is better than what I have plaved of Civilization.

...

...

IS EVERYONE HAPPY NOW?!

I've been happy this entire time. It's fun to get back at ABF for all those years of him annoying the fuck out of me. :)

Quote:What I have played of Simcity is better than what I have plaved of Civilization.

...

...

IS EVERYONE HAPPY NOW?!

Yes, that's a perfectly fine statement.

Quote:Whiiich brings us back the original issue of you bashing Morrowind based off of ZERO playtime experience, whereas GR actually played some Civ!!

Nope, that statement only proves one thing. Well, two. First, that you don't actually read my posts as I specifically refuted that charge in the knowledge that you'd try to use it. I'd quote it, but almost the whole section you quoted was an attempt to show how that charge of yours is based not only on no evidence but that YOU are the one who made it a discussion about Morrowind in the first place...

Come back when you read what I said. Though given you that'll be never.

Quote:I find it amazing how long you can stick to the same bullshit. Your theory that a person only needs to play one or two games in a series means that you automatically have a formed opinion on another entry into the series--without having played it!!--is really, really amazing to me. Seriously, I am at awe with you. I mean you have to realize just how retarded you sound, but you still stick to your guns! I salute you!!

I am completely sure that if it was anyone else at TC who had said that idea first you'd have had no problem with it. You only complain because it's me and you've taken it on to argue with every single thing I say. That's the only possible reason.

The problem is, you'll repeat yourself again and I'll try to prove my point which will take a long time and a long post that I've done before that you'll ignore again because you don't actually care what I say (except to pull out a word or two here and there to yell at me about)... why would this be so hard to prove? That is because I have already proved it (with the WCII/III comparison) and you ignored it so I'd have to try to get into explaining what I mean by "gameplay style", which is harder...

Anyway, think about it. Does playing Zelda: OoT mean that I can comment on the gameplay style in MM? Well... in a few regards yes but any sensible person would inform me of how different gameplay is in many ways. TWW then? There it's better but again different in ways that would be explained... but more similar this time. TLOZ vs. LttP or LA? Same deal. Similar in many key ways. Yes, the differences should be elucidated when someone asks about one they haven't played, but would you say that if someone said "I hated LttP so I doubt I'd like LA either" that they have no justification at all for making that comment? Based on your arguement here you MUST say that, even though it is obviously stupid given how similar thoe games are. Yes, there are differences enough that some people may hate LttP but like LA, but it wouldn't be too common. The same goes for The Elder Scrolls: while there are very significant differences between the games, the base gameplay shines through just like it does throuhout the Zelda series. You cannot deny this basic fact. They did not dramatically change the gameplay as the series progressed. Now, did they make the games better? Yes, of course they did. But 'better' does not necessarially mean 'dramatically different'. In fact, I would argue that it would usually mean something more like 'refinement of the game into something that follows the essences of the series'. This is inarguably what they did when they went from Arena to Morrowind, and something that ALL accounts (I wouldn't say that if I saw anywhere that said elsewhere, but I know of none) agree is true for Morrowind as well.

Now, I am not judging most of the details of the gameplay. I cannot obviously. What I was doing then was talking about it on a more theoretical level -- "What kind of RPG is your favorite kind" was the question, and "traditional ones like BG or Fallout are mine" was my answer. And while Morrowind is certainly a better game than Arena and I'm sure I'd like the game a lot (make no mistake about it, if I had Morrowind I'm sure I'd like it), for the reasons I went into so much depth about a while back I prefer more traditionally styled games.


To look at how this arguement started (and figure out what actually we are arguing about). First, here's the thread that caused the problems. Look at my first post. I do not mention Morrowind once. Why? Because I was talking about what I had played and what those games were like, and then talked in general about how I think that kind of game compares to a traditional PC RPG.

http://www.tcforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2344

When did the problem start? When you said 'why should I care' and I said what I've been repeating ever since, that you can translate game styles over from game to game. Heh, I even use Warcraft as my first example... which I still think is a perfectly valid comparison. I am sure that somewhere inside you would too if you'd played Arena or Daggerfall.

Anyway, it spiralled from there, but from my perspective at least the problem is simple. As I said much later, I haven't played Morrowind and you and GR haven't played Daggerfall or Arena so we don't have someone with the common ground for me to prove that the series hasn't changed as much as you imply (yes, I KNOW it has changed a lot! I know! But in its essence I'm not really talking about details like exactly how you hit the enemies or if the towns are randomly generated (though that is one thing that Morrowind greatly improved on), but about the more general things... 'what were they thinking when they designed the series', for instance. We know that the overriding theme of the TES series has been open-endedness. No arguement there, right? They have been focused on letting the player go to a huge number of places and see all kinds of areas and do all kinds of things in a game that is theoretically never-ending. This is their core design philosophy, and it leads them to make many choices. In a similar manner a Final Fantasy game is designed to tell a linear story and have you follow it along and it is designed to maximize that kind of gameplay. Morrowind is no different from Arena and Daggerfall in regards to this core design philosophy. And while it is surely improved over them in terms of detail and variety, I am also sure (and have plenty of supporting evidence to corroborate the claim) that it has many of those same compromises that, in my eyes, raise up (the best of) classic RPGs and hurt this type (though only in comparison to the best... I'm sure Morrowind is still far better than most standard-type PC RPGs out there...).

Anyway, the arugement will not end because we, at the moment, have no way to resolve it... unless I get Morrowind or one of you play Arena or Daggerfall. :)

Quote:Nope, that statement only proves one thing. Well, two. First, that you don't actually read my posts as I specifically refuted that charge in the knowledge that you'd try to use it. I'd quote it, but almost the whole section you quoted was an attempt to show how that charge of yours is based not only on no evidence but that YOU are the one who made it a discussion about Morrowind in the first place...

Come back when you read what I said. Though given you that'll be never.

Your rebuttals are great! They consist of either "Nope you're wrong", "Uh-uh, that's false", "Sorry, but that's simply not true", or my personal favorite, "Sorry you're wrong, then again you don't have glasses so you can't see your face!!!11".

Quote:I am completely sure that if it was anyone else at TC who had said that idea first you'd have had no problem with it. You only complain because it's me and you've taken it on to argue with every single thing I say. That's the only possible reason.

I admit, the fact that it's you who is the big hypocrite made me want to pwn you even more, but a stupid hypocrite is a stupid hypocrite!

Quote:The problem is, you'll repeat yourself again and I'll try to prove my point which will take a long time and a long post that I've done before that you'll ignore again because you don't actually care what I say (except to pull out a word or two here and there to yell at me about)... why would this be so hard to prove? That is because I have already proved it (with the WCII/III comparison) and you ignored it so I'd have to try to get into explaining what I mean by "gameplay style", which is harder...

I've already proven you wrong, and sticking out your tongue while saying "nanny nanny boo boo" isn't reversing your wrongness.

Quote:Anyway, think about it. Does playing Zelda: OoT mean that I can comment on the gameplay style in MM? Well... in a few regards yes but any sensible person would inform me of how different gameplay is in many ways. TWW then? There it's better but again different in ways that would be explained... but more similar this time. TLOZ vs. LttP or LA? Same deal. Similar in many key ways. Yes, the differences should be elucidated when someone asks about one they haven't played, but would you say that if someone said "I hated LttP so I doubt I'd like LA either" that they have no justification at all for making that comment? Based on your arguement here you MUST say that, even though it is obviously stupid given how similar thoe games are. Yes, there are differences enough that some people may hate LttP but like LA, but it wouldn't be too common. The same goes for The Elder Scrolls: while there are very significant differences between the games, the base gameplay shines through just like it does throuhout the Zelda series. You cannot deny this basic fact. They did not dramatically change the gameplay as the series progressed. Now, did they make the games better? Yes, of course they did. But 'better' does not necessarially mean 'dramatically different'. In fact, I would argue that it would usually mean something more like 'refinement of the game into something that follows the essences of the series'. This is inarguably what they did when they went from Arena to Morrowind, and something that ALL accounts (I wouldn't say that if I saw anywhere that said elsewhere, but I know of none) agree is true for Morrowind as well.

Man, this is simply amazing. It really is. You still haven't played Morrowind, so you're still talking about of your ass (like that's ever not the case), and your statement that Morrowind is basically unchanged from the previous games makes this all the more hilarious to those of us who've actually played them. You're like someone who's never tried chocolate before trying to convince someone who has that it "totally tastes like cinnamon". With each new word you add to this thread you make yourself look like more and more of a retard. You really do.
But please, don't let me stop you from contuining. This really is fun to watch.

Quote:Now, I am not judging most of the details of the gameplay. I cannot obviously. What I was doing then was talking about it on a more theoretical level -- "What kind of RPG is your favorite kind" was the question, and "traditional ones like BG or Fallout are mine" was my answer. And while Morrowind is certainly a better game than Arena and I'm sure I'd like the game a lot (make no mistake about it, if I had Morrowind I'm sure I'd like it), for the reasons I went into so much depth about a while back I prefer more traditionally styled games.


To look at how this arguement started (and figure out what actually we are arguing about). First, here's the thread that caused the problems. Look at my first post. I do not mention Morrowind once. Why? Because I was talking about what I had played and what those games were like, and then talked in general about how I think that kind of game compares to a traditional PC RPG.

<http://www.tcforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2344>

When did the problem start? When you said 'why should I care' and I said what I've been repeating ever since, that you can translate game styles over from game to game. Heh, I even use Warcraft as my first example... which I still think is a perfectly valid comparison. I am sure that somewhere inside you would too if you'd played Arena or Daggerfall.

Anyway, it spiralled from there, but from my perspective at least the problem is simple. As I said much later, I haven't played Morrowind and you and GR haven't played Daggerfall or Arena so we don't have someone with the common ground for me to prove that the series hasn't changed as much as you imply (yes, I KNOW it has changed a lot! I know! But in its essence I'm not really talking about details like exactly how you hit the enemies or if the towns are randomly generated (though that is one thing that Morrowind greatly improved on), but about the more general things... 'what were they thinking when they designed the series', for instance. We know that the overriding theme of the TES series has been open-endedness. No arguement there, right? They have been focused on letting the player go to a huge number of places and see all kinds of areas and do all kinds of things in a game that is theoretically never-ending. This is their core design philosophy, and it leads them to make many choices. In a similar manner a Final Fantasy game is designed to tell a linear story and have you follow it along and it is designed to maximize that kind of gameplay. Morrowind is no different from Arena and Daggerfall in regards to this core design philosophy. And while it is surely improved over them in terms of detail and variety, I am also sure (and have plenty of supporting evidence to corroborate the claim) that it has many of those same compromises that, in my eyes, raise up (the best of) classic RPGs and hurt this type (though only in comparison to the best... I'm sure Morrowind is still far better than most standard-type PC RPGs out there...).

Anyway, the arugement will not end because we, at the moment, have no way to resolve it... unless I get Morrowind or one of you play Arena or Daggerfall.

Since that thread I've played all of the previous Elder Scrolls games, and the differences are indeed great. You, however, are still a moron who knows nothing of this subject.

Quote:Your rebuttals are great! They consist of either "Nope you're wrong", "Uh-uh, that's false", "Sorry, but that's simply not true", or my personal favorite, "Sorry you're wrong, then again you don't have glasses so you can't see your face!!!11".

Your arguements against my points usually aren't good enough for me to have a great rebuttal, because you don't usually adress the specific issues I talk about... or if you do it's in no detail...

Quote:I've already proven you wrong, and sticking out your tongue while saying "nanny nanny boo boo" isn't reversing your wrongness.

At least you admit that that was your motivation. :)

Quote:Since that thread I've played all of the previous Elder Scrolls games, and the differences are indeed great. You, however, are still a moron who knows nothing of this subject.

In some regards yes, the differences between the games are great. In others they are not. Like any other series. On the level I am talking about the differences between the TES games change things like some details but do not change the basic theme they are trying to accoplish or what kind of game they were trying to make. That is simply a fact. I notice that despite your denials you don't actually try to refute any of my actual points... that's because, on the whole at least, I am right about what kind of game Bethesda was trying to make with Morrowind and right about how in most regards it was a result of refining and improving on what they had done in the past instead of making up totally new game styles. The result of that? You only need to play one to be able to compare the general style of gameplay to a Baldur's Gate, just like how I don't need to play both BGI and BGII to be able to talk about how BG does its general gameplay themes. Again, I'm not talking about the details here! You still don't understand that, clearly.

Quote:Your arguements against my points usually aren't good enough for me to have a great rebuttal, because you don't usually adress the specific issues I talk about... or if you do it's in no detail...

This debate is already over, it's now just you making yourself look like an even greater fool.

And for the love of mike, it's spelled argument, a-r-g-u-m-e-n-t. No "e" after the "u"!!

Quote:At least you admit that that was your motivation.

What, to annoy you? I've already explained that. Like, five times already.

Quote:In some regards yes, the differences between the games are great. In others they are not.

You cannot make that assesment until you've played the game, stupid!!

Quote:Like any other series. On the level I am talking about the differences between the TES games change things like some details but do not change the basic theme they are trying to accoplish or what kind of game they were trying to make. That is simply a fact. I notice that despite your denials you don't actually try to refute any of my actual points... that's because, on the whole at least, I am right about what kind of game Bethesda was trying to make with Morrowind and right about how in most regards it was a result of refining and improving on what they had done in the past instead of making up totally new game styles. The result of that? You only need to play one to be able to compare the general style of gameplay to a Baldur's Gate, just like how I don't need to play both BGI and BGII to be able to talk about how BG does its general gameplay themes. Again, I'm not talking about the details here! You still don't understand that, clearly.

I understand that you're a moron. That much I'm certain of.

I would never criticize Baldur's Gate II if I've only played Baldur's Gate I. I would never criticize Mario World if I've only played Mario 3. Only a fool would do such a thing. Your are one such fool.

Quote:Yes, that's a perfectly fine statement.

Well, then I'll be sure to ask you first before making any more OUTRAGEOUS statements. *Simcity still rocks*

Quote:This debate is already over, it's now just you making yourself look like an even greater fool.

Only in your mind.

Quote:I understand that you're a moron. That much I'm certain of.

I would never criticize Baldur's Gate II if I've only played Baldur's Gate I. I would never criticize Mario World if I've only played Mario 3. Only a fool would do such a thing. Your are one such fool.

Sigh... all this time and you still have no concept of what my case or my arguement is, despite explaining it fifteen times. It's so pitiful you know... in the past I would have been surprised, but by now I have grown to expect you to ignore everything I say so it does not surprise me at all. It's just sad.

As for what you say... hmm. Yes and no. You can't criticize Mario World specifically after only playing Mario 3, but you most certainly can talk about how a Mario game plays. Read one review or opinion of Mario World and you'll know that Mario World plays very similarly to Mario 3, and while you can't talk about details like levels or the specifics of the system you could certainly say to yourself "okay for some stupid reason I disliked Mario 3, so I don't think I'd like Mario World either because it's a very similar game". This is not a contraversial idea. It's just common sense.

Similarly, I can't say "I loved Morrowind for reasons X and Y and hated it for reason Z", but if I've played some game(s) of that type I most certainly can talk about how a game designed like that one compares to the design of a different kind of game in the same genre.

Quote:You cannot make that assesment until you've played the game, stupid!!

I have yet to hear one single opinion about this game that says it is different from the first two in any tangible way as far as theme and design style. After all, I'm not trying to review Morrowind, I'm trying to compare two contrasting game styles! This does not require you to play every single game of a type! That would be like saying "you can't talk about how fast-paced RTSes compare to slow-paced RTSes until you play EVERY SINGLE RTS EVER MADE"... stupid and utterly ridiculous!

Quote:Only in your mind.

Geez, now you have to steal my lines!

Quote:Sigh... all this time and you still have no concept of what my case or my arguement is, despite explaining it fifteen times. It's so pitiful you know...

What a great rebuttal to what I wrote...

Quote:I have yet to hear one single opinion about this game that says it is different from the first two in any tangible way as far as theme and design style. After all, I'm not trying to review Morrowind, I'm trying to compare two contrasting game styles! This does not require you to play every single game of a type! That would be like saying "you can't talk about how fast-paced RTSes compare to slow-paced RTSes until you play EVERY SINGLE RTS EVER MADE"... stupid and utterly ridiculous!

Good gravy on a black bean burrito are you dumb or what! You're not comparing genres, you're comparing specific titles and using someone else's opinion as your own!

I feel sorry for the future Mrs. ABF.

Yes, even though I that she'll be imaginary. I still feel sorry for her.

I have to compromise so should ABF! Really, though, ABF, you should play Morrowind before you talk about it rather than simply making assumptions based on the previous titles in the series. It's no different than what you accused me of. Again, PLAY MORROWIND, or just talk about the other games in the series.

Compromise and ABF are two words that broke up a long, long time ago. Now they dare not even look at each other after what happened.

Oh, oh you don't even want to know what happened.

Quote:Geez, now you have to steal my lines!

When they apply to you, sure.

Quote:What a great rebuttal to what I wrote...

A very effective and compltely accurate one, but I did want more detail so I added a few paragraphs there. Reread that part.

Quote:I have to compromise so should ABF! Really, though, ABF, you should play Morrowind before you talk about it rather than simply making assumptions based on the previous titles in the series. It's no different than what you accused me of. Again, PLAY MORROWIND, or just talk about the other games in the series.

If you go back and read what I was saying in the first thread about this, I created the thread talking specifically about Arena and how playing that influenced my opinion of open-ended RPGs vs. more focused ones. Yes, Morrowind was in the background because Morrowind is also a open-ended RPG and a TES game, but I didn't start talking about it until it became the main subject... and even then, I don't think I've been making assumptions about it that are false. If you want to prove that wrong find something I said about Morrowind in specific that isn't true, but I don't think that I did much of it and if it was it was definitely unintentional...

And I can't play Morrowind because that would require buying Morrowind, and there are a few PC RPGs that I want a bit more (Wizardry 8 for instance)... stupidly there is no demo. But I have a pretty good idea of the way teh game works, and on the level I'm talking about I am sure that playing it would simply show that what I am saying is correct (that is, that the more open-ended you make your game the less sense of place each location has, the less unique the quests are in each area, the weaker the story is, etc...). That has been true for every other open-ended RPG I have played (not just the TES games) and I am sure that Morrowind is no exception. The only question is the degree... and based on the reviews, it seems to vary from category to category along the lines of the previous TES games. Which is about what I'd expect... sure, if I played Morrowind I could talk better about Morrowind. But my case doesn't hinge on Morrowind. OB1 seems to still think so, but it never did and still doesn't.

In fact it is the opposite. Morrowind is a game that could help present my arguement better, to be sure, but it is not necessary to talk about it to discuss how much linearity or open-endedness affects RPGs. It would work about as well if we discussed some of the many other games I reference on this issue, or others... so many PC RPGs have some non-linear element that it's a rich field for discussion for anyone who has played much in the genre.

Quote:When they apply to you, sure.

You're a god among men when it comes to witty rebuttals, Brian.

Quote:A very effective and compltely accurate one, but I did want more detail so I added a few paragraphs there. Reread that part.

Yes, not addressing my points and replying to your own delusions is very effective and accurate.

Quote:If you go back and read what I was saying in the first thread about this, I created the thread talking specifically about Arena and how playing that influenced my opinion of open-ended RPGs vs. more focused ones. Yes, Morrowind was in the background because Morrowind is also a open-ended RPG and a TES game, but I didn't start talking about it until it became the main subject... and even then, I don't think I've been making assumptions about it that are false. If you want to prove that wrong find something I said about Morrowind in specific that isn't true, but I don't think that I did much of it and if it was it was definitely unintentional...

And I can't play Morrowind because that would require buying Morrowind, and there are a few PC RPGs that I want a bit more (Wizardry 8 for instance)... stupidly there is no demo. But I have a pretty good idea of the way teh game works, and on the level I'm talking about I am sure that playing it would simply show that what I am saying is correct (that is, that the more open-ended you make your game the less sense of place each location has, the less unique the quests are in each area, the weaker the story is, etc...). That has been true for every other open-ended RPG I have played (not just the TES games) and I am sure that Morrowind is no exception. The only question is the degree... and based on the reviews, it seems to vary from category to category along the lines of the previous TES games. Which is about what I'd expect... sure, if I played Morrowind I could talk better about Morrowind. But my case doesn't hinge on Morrowind. OB1 seems to still think so, but it never did and still doesn't.

In fact it is the opposite. Morrowind is a game that could help present my arguement better, to be sure, but it is not necessary to talk about it to discuss how much linearity or open-endedness affects RPGs. It would work about as well if we discussed some of the many other games I reference on this issue, or others... so many PC RPGs have some non-linear element that it's a rich field for discussion for anyone who has played much in the genre.

You specifically cited Morrowind in your argument, and you even posted negative reviews of the game to help your "opinion".

Seriously man, this is really sad and pathetic. GR's already conceded some, yet you're still sticking to your retarded guns. Just give it up already and you might gain a bit of respect from us.

Quote:You specifically cited Morrowind in your argument, and you even posted negative reviews of the game to help your "opinion".

But not until you established that you would only discuss Morrowind and not the games that I would have rathered discuss: games I had played and had based the opinion on. I'm not basing my opinion on any one game, Morrowind included, I'm basing it on the subgenre as a whole! And if you look back you'll find that I constantly try to use other games in my arguements... it isn't my fault that you ignore all of that and focus just on Morrowind which I was trying to not focus on because I haven't played it.

I'm still trying to move the focus of discussion away from just Morrowind, as I have been since my first post on the topic in that thread, but it's impossible when you won't discuss any other games.

Quote:Yes, not addressing my points and replying to your own delusions is very effective and accurate.

This part most definitely addresses your arguement.

Quote:As for what you say... hmm. Yes and no. You can't criticize Mario World specifically after only playing Mario 3, but you most certainly can talk about how a Mario game plays. Read one review or opinion of Mario World and you'll know that Mario World plays very similarly to Mario 3, and while you can't talk about details like levels or the specifics of the system you could certainly say to yourself "okay for some stupid reason I disliked Mario 3, so I don't think I'd like Mario World either because it's a very similar game". This is not a contraversial idea. It's just common sense.

Similarly, I can't say "I loved Morrowind for reasons X and Y and hated it for reason Z", but if I've played some game(s) of that type I most certainly can talk about how a game designed like that one compares to the design of a different kind of game in the same genre.

Quote:But not until you established that you would only discuss Morrowind and not the games that I would have rathered discuss: games I had played and had based the opinion on. I'm not basing my opinion on any one game, Morrowind included, I'm basing it on the subgenre as a whole! And if you look back you'll find that I constantly try to use other games in my arguements... it isn't my fault that you ignore all of that and focus just on Morrowind which I was trying to not focus on because I haven't played it.

I'm still trying to move the focus of discussion away from just Morrowind, as I have been since my first post on the topic in that thread, but it's impossible when you won't discuss any other games.

Quote:This part most definitely addresses your arguement.

Too late, you added the paragraph after I replied to it!

Quote:Too late, you added the paragraph after I replied to it!

I immediately hit the 'edit' button and started revising. It's not my fault that you posted your reply before my post had even been on the board for five minuites...

Quote:[image removed]

Pretty simple, if you cared... I'm not just talking about Morrowind and never have been trying to talk about just Morrowind, but you ignore that, don't care what I'm actually talking about, have not once in this arguement adressed the issue I am actually trying to discuss, and blame me for all kinds of things when either they are false or you caused them yourself...

Don't do that to my avatar again. That really does cross the line and prove once again how childish you are. Keep it up and I'll block you just like DJ did... which is really something I should have done months ago given how you are acting.

Quote:I immediately hit the 'edit' button and started revising. It's not my fault that you posted your reply before my post had even been on the board for five minuites...

You're right, but it's also not my fault that you didn't write what you wanted to at first.

Quote:Pretty simple, if you cared... I'm not just talking about Morrowind and never have been trying to talk about just Morrowind, but you ignore that, don't care what I'm actually talking about, have not once in this arguement adressed the issue I am actually trying to discuss, and blame me for all kinds of things when either they are false or you caused them yourself...

Uh, yeah you did, which is why you posted that idiotic Gamespy article. Stop trying to deny it!

And AGAIN, it's ARGUMENT, not ARGUEMENT!!!

Quote:Don't do that to my avatar again. That really does cross the line and prove once again how childish you are. Keep it up and I'll block you just like DJ did... which is really something I should have done months ago given how you are acting.

I didn't cry when Weltall changed my avatar a couple of times.

Quote:Uh, yeah you did, which is why you posted that idiotic Gamespy article. Stop trying to deny it!

That I posted as one source once you started talking just about Morrowind! Yes I did refer to Morrowind a couple of times in my later posts (not once in post one), but I was never trying to make it a discussion on Morrowind. Do you know what I was trying to discuss? I'll state it now in case you've missed it as I think you have.

"What are the characteristics of open-ended RPGs and of more focused RPGs (and the continuum between those two ends) and which kind do you (or I or someone else who states their opinions) like better?"

Bringing up Arena was a vector to try to achieve more effective discussion of that and for me to better understand your opinion (that you had stated in a previous thread) that you like open-ended ones more.

Quote:I didn't cry when Weltall changed my avatar a couple of times.

It's not nice and you should not do that.

Quote:That I posted as one source once you started talking just about Morrowind! Yes I did refer to Morrowind a couple of times in my later posts (not once in post one), but I was never trying to make it a discussion on Morrowind. Do you know what I was trying to discuss? I'll state it now in case you've missed it as I think you have.

"What are the characteristics of open-ended RPGs and of more focused RPGs (and the continuum between those two ends) and which kind do you (or I or someone else who states their opinions) like better?"

Bringing up Arena was a vector to try to achieve more effective discussion of that and for me to better understand your opinion (that you had stated in a previous thread) that you like open-ended ones more.

You're digging that whole even deeper, Brian! You even stated in this very thread that you need not play Morrowind to form an opinion on it, which contradicts what you're trying to say right now.

I laugh at this display of buffoonery.

Quote:It's not nice and you should not do that.

Quote:You're digging that whole even deeper, Brian! You even stated in this very thread that you need not play Morrowind to form an opinion on it, which contradicts what you're trying to say right now.

I laugh at this display of buffoonery.

No, I am trying to say that they are seperate issues! Discussing Morrowind is one thing and the subject I tried to talk about in that thread (and failed because of how you reacted and then acted) is a different one.

And I am not saying anything about Morrowind that anyone here or any article I've read about it or anything else has proven as false. If there were such things and they were pointed out as wrong, I would stop saying them... but I am for the most part (or I should be and when I am thinking about it I am not) not talking about Morrowind in detail. Why did I mention that Gamespy article? As I said, I was trying to illustrate my point about how Morrowind wasn't perfect according to the critics, how they all say it's similar to Arena and Daggerfall, and how the larger themes I talked about for Arena (big but little variety or uniqueness, conversations with NPCs, etc) translate over on the whole to Morrowind.

GR's defence of the Morrowind conversation system later actually to me reinforceed my point that one thing you suffer by making a game so big in scale was to weaken the story elements... now, playing Morrowind definitely would let me be specific here which is why I try to not be specific and just say that in general open-ended ones have weaker and less focused stories and more focused ones are the opposite.

Now, that does ignore the whole subgenre of more linear RPGs where the story is just an excuse to kill things, but for the most part those are action-RPGs or older games from before story became as important as it is now... still, they should be mentioned in comparison because when Arena came out it was definitely not as noticably far behind the competition as Morrowind was when it came out, despite how there are significant upgrades in this category in each TES game...

You made that thread with the specific purpose of trying to bash the Elder Scrolls game because your beloved Baldur's Gate series was being made fun of, and you posted a really bad gamespy article that tries to bash Morrowind because you have no opinion of your own.

Like I said, I find this very amusing. I'm no longer mad at your idiocy, but rather amused by it. I see you for what you are now: a confused, insecure child who hates to be wrong.

OB1, only someone as stupidly certain that everything anyone says is an attack would think such a thing.

But that whole post of yours is just full of things that are completely wrong by any standard. For one, you say that I did not have an opinion of my own. Actually, the whole POINT of my posting that thread was to say that I now had a MUCH BETTER UNDERSTANDING of the genre due to my now PLAYING a game squarely in it, idiot! The fact I was talking about things I had played was also why I did not talk about Morrowind even once there. You didn't understand my point then and you still don't now, which is incredibly pitiful and sad given how well I have explained it over and over again.

Really acting like I made that thread because of the Gamespy article just about equals any of your previous low points in "arguments". It couldn't be more wrong. I'd read that article like a year before and thought of it when you asked for anything that supported what I was saying... I could as well have linked a half dozen reviews of the game, they'd suit the purposes of citation there just about as well. But I found something so of course to make up for the fact that I actually had something you bashed it. But as it is very clear if you actually read the thread, I made the thread because I'd played Arena. That is why. Now, it was somewhat in response to your comments in the BG thread, that is true, but when you said 'I like open-ended games more than focused ones for rpgs' it made me think 'why?' and the best way is to play some of those kinds of games... I'd done some of that with Fallout, but playing Arena helped even more, along with Daggerfall. No amount of your moronic attacks can change the fact that the point I was, and still am, trying to make has nothing to do with Morrowind being "bad" or some idiotic thing like that that you've gotten stuck into your head that I said. How many times do I have to say that I am sure it's a very good game until you listen? I AM NOT QUESTIONING THE QUALITY OF MORROWIND! Nor Daggerfall, nor Arena! They are good games! That is NOT THE ISSUE HERE! Attacking Arena because I was annoyed at you bashing Baldur's Gate? What in the world are you thinking? Why should I get that annoyed at the latest moronic thing you've said to act like that... it'd be stupid and I wouldn't do it. Your opinions do not deserve that level of credit 95% of the time. If you actually thought that, it's your ego which needs deflating...

Now, was I annoyed? Yeah, somewhat, especially with your typical lack of explanation. But playing Arena helped me understand that genre better (because Fallout really is a cross of the two types), which is why I created a thread to talk about that take on RPGs and how it contrasts to normal ones...

Now, do I prefer normal PC RPGs? Yes, I do. But do I hate open-ended ones? No, I do not. They are good too and the better of them are certainly better than most "normal" PC RPGs. I just really like D&D and the D&D way of doing things and think that the best RPGs are the ones that do the best jobs of turning a D&D tabletop game or book or something into a computer game... which means Baldur's Gate et al.

(On that note, is Morrowind better than Baldur's Gate I? I can't judge because I haven't played Morrowind of course but based on reviews and the like and how Arena/Daggerfall compare to BG I'd say 'very possibly, if I played it to see'...). I mean, BG is and was a great game, but it's not perfect and compared to more advanced RPGs like Baldur's Gate II really doesn't compare. And Morrowind is definitely also a very good RPG.


Really, when you get down to it, my main complaint about the more open-ended subgenre of RPGs is that they don't have the same level of storytelling and focus. Also, while they let you do more things, what you are doing often feels like it is making less of an impact on the world because of the sheer scale and how with such a huge world game designers simply cannot spend anywhere near as much time on each area as they can in a small-scale game... the 'open-ended' tag also obviously applies to MMORPGs, by the way. They are very open ended. And given my play of the WoW beta, they are fun games... I'd get WoW if it didn't have a monthly fee. The tedium is broken with enough fun to be worth the time and the gameplay has just enough to keep you going... now, I don't think that genre is perfect either as I was saying in the WoW thread (go there if you want my critique of that genre, centered around how you do not feel like you are actually making any kind of impact on the world), but it's an intresting kind of game that proves that you can tell a good story in a open-ended game if you try. WoW is vast and open-ended but has a solid storyline with well-written quests. Morrowind, by all accounts, does not compare. This does not make it a bad game... Blizz is the best, after all... it just means that one of Bethesda's flaws is that their storytellers and writers aren't Blizzard or Bioware/Obsidian(Black Isle)/Troika quality. That's nothing to be very ashamed of, though, given how very high those four companies are in the ladder of companies that tell good stories. (well, Bioware should probably be a bit lower than Obsidian/Black Isle and Troika on the ladder, but not WAY behind.) And the TES games have enough content and decent enough writing and interaction to keep you going...

Gah, you're going to take this as another attack I know it, but it's impossible to avoid when you have had the idea stuck in your head for so long. I just wish that someone who can use their reason was having this discussion with me, like Smoke or DJ...

Say what you want, we all know what happened in that thread.

Yes, we do.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/359/359554p3.html

Here's IGN's review of Morrowind. Page three because it has the part I want to quote. IGN has a very nice (and five page) review of Morrowind. It both illustrates the strong points and weaker points of Morrowind. Why couldn't you just have filled in blanks like they do but with more detail when I asked... this could have been so simple... but no. Anyway.

Quote:Once you select a faction or two and get familiar with the cultural landscape, Morrowind becomes Quest Heaven. According to the developers, there are more than four hundred quests in the game. I've tapped into only eighty or so, but I'm sure they're not inflating that figure. Unlike Daggerfall, you won't find generic cookie-cutter tasks, here. Each faction usually has quest givers at several faction headquarters. Most offer in total anywhere from twenty to thirty quests. These are by no means your standard FedX style, kill-this-and-get-that tasks, but embrace an variety of possibilities. I've been asked to rescue people, buy things, build things, learn spells, convince people, locate anything from herbs to books to wine, steal items (a lot, as you might expect, by the Thieves' Guild), and lead a fellow guild member from one location to another. There are many twists en route; sometimes you have several optional methods for achieving a quest goal, several possible competing recipients who will reward you for requested information, or a goal that is other than you've been led to believe. I think I break no faction secrets by revealing that at least one quest giver in Vvardenfell is corrupt, while at least a few are obsessed, and one lets ancient grudges affect their sense of balance. Much of the fun involved comes from creatively researching a more complex quest, and seeing where your choices lie. I wouldn't have it any other way.

The main quest path awaits your attention patiently, but ultimately lobs more difficult and unforeseen challenges than anything else the game can throw at you. It's larger and more complex than the various faction paths, with unexpected curves that heighten the tension and one-of-a-kind threats. Best of all, even when it's finished, you don't have to stop playing. You'll find that most population centers, from tiny hamlets to large cities, have one or two quests to offer. So do some shrines, some of them hidden, that invoke the gods, and you'll also discover isolated quests in the forms of travelers seeking assistance in the countryside. For the roleplayer who lives to quest, Morrowind is an embarrassment of riches.

Sounds good. Arena's best writing was probably in the quests, and this is also true in MMORPGs that try (like WoW, great quest writing there that helps disguise their tediousness and repetitive nature).

Quote:The generic feeling that hovered over Daggerfall has certainly been banished in Morrowind. While a lot of work clearly went into the extraordinary graphics, it's only one aspect of the overall game design that has made each faction, quest, race, city, environment and dungeon distinguishable from all others. There really is a complex, interactive cultural model at work, here, and I find it more impressive every chance I play and discover something new.

Indeed, generic graphics that only were superficially different between areas (if at all, if you stay within each region) was a major issue for Arena and Daggerfall and it's nice to see it banished. I assume that they achieved the task by having each game shrink (Arena let you go to every major city on the continent, Daggerfall to one region made up of small parts of two nations, and Morrowind to one island of another), but given that the scale is still incredibly huge that really doesn't matter. The effect is the important thing and that would definitely help the games, though you get used to the similarity between towns in the older games... but originiality would make it more intresting.

Quote:One generic element remains in place, entirely out of sync with the rest of Morrowind, and that's the repetitive dialog that you hear from most of the more-than-one-thousand NPCs in the game. Conversation is based on a series of highlighted subjects in a (quite literally) dialog box; click on a subject while speaking to an NPC, and it responds with written text. But the same subject, like little advice, appears for nearly every NPC. Writing that many unique responses was clearly out of the question.

The solution was to provide a very small number of responses -- or for some subjects, a single response which all NPCs would use. Since they repeat throughout the large population, these cloned responses tend to leech any given NPC of the individuality they may otherwise possess. This is especially noticeable when the NPC in question begins conversation a spoken comment indicating a lack of linguistic ease, or a culturally distinctive use of the language -- like some members of the Khajit race, who may quote a poetic and metaphorical phrase of welcome. Then before the written dialog box launches, and they rever to Fluent Vanilla Speech, meaning standard replies in standard language. Specific speech patterns should have been used as templates for new race-, profession- or area-related replies that contained the same basic information. An easier method of resolving this would have been to hide hotlighted subjects leading to cloned replies, and show them only when the NPC in question had something new to add.

I don't want to give the impression that every person you meet in Morrowind is a mere placemarker. None actually are, and some, like sarcastic Larrius Varo, quaint Sugar-Lips Habasi, and bumbling Trebonius Artiorius, convey well-defined personalities. But there's no real dialog tree, just statements of information or offerings of quests. I'm not suggesting this aspect of the dialog issue has any easy remedy -- not when you consider the number of dialogs needed to make an impression in such a heavily populated game. But the lack of conversation or even predetermined conversations between NPCs (as Baldur's Gate II manages so very well) has some deadening effect on character differentiation.

This was exactly what I stated as one of the major flaws in an open-ended RPG. As I've said many times, it is unavoidable and that is one reason why focused ones will always have some advantages over open-ended ones.

This is also exactly the same system that was used in Arena and Daggerfall. The main difference between games seems to be that in each one you get a few more choices other than the standard 'asking for directions' stuff you'll find in any game this open-ended, or any MMORPG (and is absolutely necessary to navigate the cities in any such game)... but clearly it is not as good as it could be even considering the restrictions of being open-ended. Again something you get used to and that in some regards they could not improve on (you can't give individual dialogue trees for thousands of people.) but shows one problem with making a game as open-ended as these are.

Quote:I wish that Morrowind had targeted combat shots, at least at higher skill levels. But my only real displeasure with the combat system is the puzzling absence of any way to measure damage on an opponent. You get a red mist of blood with a hit, but no indicator about what you've hurt, or how badly. If the developers couldn't show us progressive damage, they should at least have placed a symbolic health bar over each enemy to give a sense of how the battle was going. Still, this is the kind of thing that can be changed by a patch, and I hope Bethesda Softworks pursues that course.

You mentioned this too as a problem with the game. It does sound annoying... I know that it really gets frusterating in Baldur's Gate I because there is no indicator of how hurt an enemy is until they die. Yes, you can see if you hit or not and how much damage you're doing, but not how much total damage you've done or how healthy they are... BGII greatly improved that with the general words describing enemy status ("badly wounded", etc).

Quote:Morrowind's larger cities like Balmora and Vitec feel very empty, but it's not for lack of inhabitants. People live in all of Vvardenfell's residences and occupy all the businesses -- but they never leave. Most of them never even move, and that's 24/7, long enough for most sitting denizens to put out rudimentary feelers. Since many two-level workspaces also act as homes (a reallife tradition that was actually common in the heyday of both Imperial Rome and the early European Renaissance), why couldn't these shopkeepers open/unlock and close/lock their shops, retire to bed, and even move visible inventory around a bit while awake? Daggerfall supported shop hours, and it was probably the only RPG element in which it surpassed its successor, adding to the feeling of a unique rhythm of life within each community. I'd hoped Morrowind would give us nocturnal Thieves Guild shops, and maybe taverns that closed down during the day. For that matter, it's annoying to find the same tavern habitués rooted to the floor all the time. Where is the ebb and flow of traffic, the occasional new visitor with news from afar, the dancing girls and musicians?

Not a major problem by any means, but I've heard a lot about how the unmoving and nonanimating NPCs aren't very good... I doubt I'd have a big problem with that, as it's something you'd probably more notice when it's there than when it's not... It's also something you notice more when the graphics get better and you expect more from them for sure. Morrowind looks amazing so you expect a lot from it detail-wise that you'd never expect from an Arena...

Stranger is not closing at night. I didn't know (or at least, didn't remember, I don't know which this long after I would have read reviews of it) about that in this one and it's very odd because shops closed at night in Arena, and they closed at night in Daggerfall, so why in the world wouldn't they in Morrowind? Most RPGs (or even action-RPGs) that have day/night cycles have stuff like this... Quest for Glory, for instance, or even Zelda... :)

A Black Falcon Wrote:Yes, we do.

Finally you admit that I'm right, even though you don't think that you did.


BTW you do realize that this quoting of a review of a game that you've never played in order to help your argument which is based off of a non-existing opinion is the very thing that you're a moron for, riiiiight? Because I'm not getting the feeling that you realize that.