Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

[OB1]

Holy shit, this game can't come soon enough. Morrowind was a very fun game despite some huge flaws (horrible art, terrible graphics engine, shitty combat), and its sequel, Oblivion, looks to correct at least those first two problems. Well I'll just stop talking about let you guys drool over these gorgeous screens (all in-game, BTW):













^^^^^^^^^^
Holy shit! This alone makes the lack of huge environments in Fable easier to handle. You see, ABF, this is very different from having a whole bunch of tiny environments slapped together ala KOTOR. And this is why the first-person/third-person perspective rules for immersion. You could never get this feeling in an isometric game.








Gorgeous. Too bad it won't be out until the next wave of consoles. :( But hopefully the PC version will come out sooner than 2006. It would be mean to show off the game two whole years before its projected release date.

[Great Rumbler]

Wow, those graphics are amazing. Especially the pic from inside the forest, it looks almost like a photograph of a real forest!

[OB1]

I know!! I can't wait until this comes out.

[Great Rumbler]

Too bad it's still a long ways away.

I hope this one isn't quite as linear as Morrowind, it should still be linear, though, just not as much.

[OB1]

What? How was Morrowind linear?

[A Black Falcon]

The Elder Scrolls... haven't played much of that series. Just a little bit of the Daggerfall demo years ago. But I've heard quite a bit about it of course... as for this game, I don't know. I am sure that it will continue in the TES tradition, so that means a weak story, not much cohesion, a giant world where you can do anything but where the story quickly gets lost or becomes pretty weak, very simple combat... but open-endedness in the extreme. I honestly don't know if I'd like it, as I actually do like to know what I am doing in games... okay, I enjoy SimCity. But that is a very different kind of thing from this.

That said, I have the (freeware!) version of Arena on my PC, but haven't come around to trying it out yet.

[OB1]

You probably won't like it as it's a good series.

[A Black Falcon]

My concern is about how open-ended it is and that I like goals...

[OB1]

Well I can tell you right now that you won't like it.

[Great Rumbler]

What? How was Morrowind linear?

Whoops. I mean nonlinear. I always get the two confused.

[A Black Falcon]

Okay, GR, that makes a lot more sense... :)

And OB1, that's some of my thinking too. Though I will obviously reserve judgement until I actually play them.

[OB1]

I can't get enough of nonlinear RPGs. The more freedom you have the better. It's very easy to play through Morrowind by sticking straight to the main storyline and beating it in a rather linear fashion. The game gives you the choice and doesn't parent you.

[A Black Falcon]

People have complained about some genres being too linear (RPGs and simulations seem to get the complaint most often), but I just don't see much of a problem in linearity. Yes, it's definitely DIFFERENT, but it's not WORSE. At least to me.

As for non-linear RPGs, I haven't really played any of those for a significant amount of time... Fallout can be if you want but it's also got a great solid linear plot to follow. MMORPGs are closest but I've only played that kind of game a little bit. And I did find myself wishing that I had something definite to do... though since it was a beta I was worrying a lot more about the awful lag and framerate. I admit that when it works it's kind of addicting for a while... but I don't know how long it'd last without an actual goal.

TES has a goal but everything I have heard says that it's poorly defined and poorly laid out and is very easy to ignore, so it's not exactly what I mean when I say an actual goal. :)

Still, they are very popular games... if Morrowind had a demo I'd probably try it but I don't think it does.

[OB1]

The fact that Morrowind is so popular despite it's terrible graphics and combat system speaks volumes on the qualities of open-ended gameplay design. It wouldn't be a hundredth as popular as it is if it were linear like KOTOR. And it's a game that you will play much, much longer than KOTOR.

Linear games definitely serve their purpose, but it depends on the genre. I wouldn't want a Mario game that didn't have even linearity and structure, but for RPGs and the like, non-linearity is a must. It's fun to play through a game like FF every once in a while, but the games where you'll keep on coming back solely for the gameplay are the ones that offer you the freedom to do whatever you want.

[Great Rumbler]

I want an open-ended RPG of course, but I think Morrowind was a bit TOO non-linear. It's too easy to get lost and not know where to go next, sure that was fun for a while just cruising from town to town and doing little things, but after a while it get a bit old.

[OB1]

My brother beat the main quest fairly quickly. They don't hold you hand in Morrowind, and perhaps you were too used to that.

[A Black Falcon]

I don't like it when the game just says 'figure it all out yourself'. I want a nice automap, a good quest log... sure, in 1991 it was fine to have no help for the players. But these days I expect things like automaps and quest logs in any decent real RPG... if it's going to not have a clear goal, at least make it so that I know what I'm doing and what quests I'm currently on so I don't get lost and confused about what I'm doing now.

[OB1]

There is a quest log in the game. I don't like games that patronize me, but it looks like you do so I'll guess we'll leave it at that.

[A Black Falcon]

It's not like I won't play the game if it doesn't have a map and quest log and stuff (especially if it's older where it's much more excusable -- see 'Quest for Glory', of which I am currently still working on game 3...), but I definitely prefer them to be there. The whole game doesn't need a strict progression -- parts where you just do side quests and stuff without the goal that moves you forward appearing for some time work just fine -- but if it is laid out like that I definitely prefer some kind of guidelines like a decent questlog so that you don't get lost or forget what you are doing.

Having to map and write things down on pieces of paper was expected in 1992 (QFG), but it isn't anymore, I would say. :)

[OB1]

You do realize that the game has a questlog and a map, right? I have no idea why you're acting like it doesn't.

The whole point of sandbox-type games is to give the player the freedom to do whatever they want, whether that's to wander around aimlessly or follow a strict path. It assumes that you're grown-up enough to figure it out for yourself. :)

[A Black Falcon]

I was talking about older PC RPG titles which gave you very little help... they weren't so much nonlinear in that you can do anything as they were nonlinear in that they didn't tell you much about what you were supposed to do next so you have to figure a lot of stuff out yourself. Like mapping, in titles like Quest for Glory (of which I finished QFGIII a day or two ago and just started on the not-particularly-helpful-on-the-help-front Quest for Glory IV: Shadows of Darkness...)...

[OB1]

....


what?

[A Black Falcon]

Have you played any PC RPG released before, say, 1997? Or even an adventure game?

[OB1]

No I mean why the hell are you talking about that now? We were talking about Morrowind. You complained about it not having a log book.

[A Black Falcon]

No I didn't! I wasn't talking specifically about Morrowind, but more generally. I know Morrowind has a logbook (though I seem to remember hearing that it isn't too well laid out). I was just saying that having one improves games. Oh, it's okay while you're playing frequently to not have one as you can remember what quests you are on, but if you take a break for a while... it is SO easy to forget everything if the game has no kind of record of your quests!

[OB1]

...

We were in the middle of discussing Morrowind when you brought up this point as if you were debating what I said. You do this all of the time, and it drives me nuts.

It's like this:


Me: Well no, I think the more nonlinear progression in the 3D Mario games is good, but really not the best way to make a 3D platformer.

You: It's not frentic, for sure, but I like taking my time to explore the worlds and complete the goals.

Me: That is fun, but Mario games have always had a certain rhythm and fast pace to them which is why I'd like to see a more linear and fast-paced 3D Mario game in the future.

You: Well I don't know, I think that cheerios are good without milk.

Me: ... what the fuck...?

[A Black Falcon]

Well once we're on the topic of journals, why not expand it beyond one game I haven't played?

[OB1]

[nickdaddyg]

Wow, those graphics are amazing. Especially the pic from inside the forest, it looks almost like a photograph of a real forest!

Yep...it's those damn Xbox graphics at work again. Ah, I love me Xbox.

Wait, those are XB shots and not PC, right?

[OB1]

PC. The game is coming out for the PC, X-Box 2, and PS3.

[A Black Falcon]

The X-Box version probably won't look quite as nice. :)

[nickdaddyg]

...nigger please!

[OB1]

The X-Box version probably won't look quite as nice. :)

Yes, since it will just be a blank screen. Because it's not coming out for the X-Box.

*slaps ABF across the face for ignoring my posts*

[A Black Falcon]

http://www.elderscrolls.com/codex/team_rpgnextgen.htm

Article/letter by the developers. Well worth reading.

http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/the-elder-scrol...?fromint=1

Five-page preview.


About the article... this interested me.

Now, we do change scale in each game, because certain things you do cause the game to flow differently. Even though Morrowind is about 0.0001% the landmass of Daggerfall, the way you play it makes it feel even richer. Oblivion's landmass is larger than Morrowind's, but you can fast travel around much easier. It still has Morrowind's feel of open exploration, but Arena's feel of ease of travel and, well, it's more fun

Morrowind is a tiny fraction of the size of Daggerfall? Really? How small an area of the world does it cover? Arena covered the whole world. Yes, it "only" had the cities and surrounding areas and not the many miles in between, but each part of the world was represented. Daggerfall focused a lot more closely, and took one part of the game -- parts of two of the regions. So Morrowind is even smaller? Huh... still huge though, obviously. but Oblivion will be bigger than Morrowind... Arena's ease of travel? I guess that means that it'll have warping. (that is, that you can go to a Travel map and immediately travel to any city in the gameworld without interruption) Daggerfall has that too though so I'd think it would also be in Morrowind... anyway, it looks like another TES game, for good or ill (and there's some of both). They will always have problems with scale when making such a huge game, but as they keep improving it with each title it seems like the series should eventually get better on most of those aspects... though some things they just can't fully help, they are mostly things that are less important for what kind of game they are thinking of designing.


From the preview. This caught my eye... :)

Combat is one of the major gameplay elements that's being completely revamped in Oblivion. Some of the most interesting feedback the team got from Morrowind players concerned the nature of combat. PC gamers are used to Western RPG conventions, most of which are derived from Dungeons & Dragons -- conventions that include behind-the scenes die rolls to determine success or failure. Those conventions aren't nearly as common on consoles, especially in first-person perspective games such as Morrowind. Howard described it this way: "It's amazing how many people played Morrowind and said (to us), 'Why is my character missing when he swings? The enemy is right there!,' or 'Why did that guy see me? I thought I was hiding.'"

Silly console RPG players...

It continues with

"We've realized how much combat people really do in a game like this and made it more of a priority to get it right," Howard continued. The Oblivion team actually developed three entirely new combat systems and did extensive testing on them all before settling on the one that will be in the final game. The basic idea of Oblivion combat is to impart the 'kinetic energy feeling' of guys bashing each other with swords. The game will have a number of special moves available and blocking is actively under player control, not automatic. As a result, timing moves, shielding yourself, and responding to the enemy becomes a key strategy in fighting. The team also didn't shy away from the gore either. It isn't over the top or gratuitous, but it does fall in line with the design philosophy of trying to make the game as realistic as possible. Basically, when you really smack someone with a sword, you expect a certain level of blood to come spewing out, so the team is trying to fulfill those expectations.

Action gamers, on the other hand, won't necessarily have an unfair advantage. As Howard himself pointed out, the combat system in every Elder Scrolls game has walked a fine line between RPG and action. They've all been first-person and players always controlled their sword arm in real time, but in prior games, the die rolls added an extra layer of randomness between the player and the world. While the combat system of Oblivion tries to remove those layers, RPG players can breathe easy knowing that their beloved stats haven't gone anywhere. This difference this time is that the player's stats determine what they can do, and how effective those things are, but they're now in full control of the "when." Blocking a blow is manual, for instance, but the effectiveness of that block is determined by your character's block skill -- things like how much damage the block absorbs, how much fatigues it causes and so forth. Striking an enemy with a sword is no longer random, but the amount of damage caused is a function of strength and weapon skill.

I don't know about this. I think that PC RPGs do it a good way... that this series has always had issues with its combat system is obvious, but I don't think that making it even more action-oriented is the right decision. But we'll see.

The rest of the preview is also definitely worth reading.

[OB1]

The combat in Morrowind was horrendous. If you're going to use D&D rules make it play like BG or something. But when your enemy is right in front of your damn face and your weapon only hits it a fraction of the time that makes for shoddy, inane gameplay. D&D rules and real-time combat work together about as well as showering and D&D fans.

[A Black Falcon]

If it's a PC RPG, I don't have a problem with it using standard PC RPG (that is, D&D-inspired) stat/dice-based gameplay. That's the way it is supposed to be! Okay, TES isn't a typical PC RPG series due to its action-based combat where you actually swing the sword yourself (by moving the mouse in the way you want the sword to swing, at least in the first two games... it's actually kind of cool... for a while anyway.)

I'd say that the magic system in combat should be improved, definitely. Weapons? It works. It's nothing special, but being quite used to PC RPGs I found nothing strange about frequently missing... I would never have noticed it as a problem with the combat, certainly. That's just normal to me in RPGs... and despite how action-based the combat is (even more based on how well you can click (and drag the mouse!) than Diablo!) it IS an RPG.

[OB1]

I hate to break it to you sister, but even PC reviewers complained about Morrowind's shitty combat. It's not just level-headed console gamers.

[A Black Falcon]

Hence my statement that I admitted that the combat is flawed... I was just saying that I don't think that making it even more arcadish is the right answer...

[OB1]

I love how you call real-time combat "arcadish". That's what all PC fanboys call real-time combat. Morrowind's combat is a hundred times simpler than any "arcadish" console game out there, even the really simple ones like Final Fight. You literally just click on the mouse as fast as you can, hoping that you'll land a hit. You don't even have to move around! At least in Final Fight you have to move around when you fight!

Either you go turn-based, quasi-real-time-strategy (like BG), or proper real time. If Morrowind had Fable's combat system (which is flawed in its own right), it would be ten times the game it already is.

[Great Rumbler]

I missed quite a bit in this thread. Anyway, I've been playing Morrowind like crazy for the past few weeks and have had little time for anything else. Earlier in this thread I made some statement about getting lost in Morrowind because it was too linear, well I take it back, Oblivion should be just as linear as Morrowind because Morrowind rocks. I can't stop playing it. Seriously.

[OB1]

Wait, don't you mean non-linear? :D

And yeah, even with all of its flaws it's still a ton of fun to play.

[Great Rumbler]

Yeah, that's what I meant. Non-linear. As in things aren't laid out in front of you and you have to find them for yourselves. Non-linear. Not linear. Because that's something else entirely. Anyway, yeah it's very fun.

[OB1]

Yeah take that, ABF! Dumb face!

[A Black Falcon]

Ahh... so they removed that. That's really too bad. See, Arena and Daggerfall have a very unique combat system. Instead of just clicking to swing, you have to do a different motion. You have to click and hold the left mouse button and then move the mouse in the motion you want to swing the sword on the screen in. It takes a while to get used to, but it's pretty neat... in Arena it seems like something of a gimmick because damage seems to be equal anywhere (though I'm not sure), but I can see how if they improved it and added localized damage and stuff that it could be pretty interesting. Too bad that they devolved it to a standard click fast to swing more.

I assume that it was removed for because of the X-Box... though they could have put the sword one one of the analog sticks... but as it is... yeah, that's not too good. Other first person RPGs do that as well -- see Stonekeep -- and that game is a lot less fun than it would be with a better RPG combat system too.

[OB1]

Please, the X-Box was no reason. Or at least it is no excuse. In fact that type of combat could have worked better with two analog sticks.

[A Black Falcon]

Yeah, it could have... in Arena anyway it can be annoying when you are quickly dragging the mouse around and when you let go of the mouse button you click one of the buttons on the large interface panel on the bottom chunk of the screen. So you are right, consoles aren't an excuse... I have no idea why they removed it.

[OB1]

Real-time combat and D&D dice rules don't mix together, ever.

[A Black Falcon]

Dice rules are as good a system as any for deciding hits... I don't have a problem with it. Sometimes you hit, sometimes you don't, that's how it mostly would work in real life as well...

Oh, and OB1, it was inadvertent but you finally answered one of my questions from the Arena thread. As I said in one of my first posts there, I was interested to see if they kept that combat system... I'd heard that it had been simplified, but not exactly how...

[OB1]

What an idiotic thing to say. Would that type of random system work in a fighting game? Nope. Would it work in a platformer? Nope. Would it work in an action game? Nope. Would it work in a FPS? Nope. It doesn't work in any kind of real-time combat situation. The way you decide if you've made a hit is determined by how well you aim. The whole point of real-time combat is to put as much control in the players hand, so how well they play the game determines how effective they are, not some idiotic idea of chance. :screwy:

[A Black Falcon]

Aim isn't everything. Aim right at them but sometimes it will stop on the armor. Either you need to have a arm-strength modifier somehow (to say how hard you hit in addition to exactly where) and a model of the entire enemy so it says exactly what you would with a specific angle and strength of hit at any place on the character or you need to introduce randomness.