| |
Site Navigation
Main
News
Forums
Games
Games Database
Top 100
Release List
Support Files
Features
Reviews
Previews
Interviews
Editorials
Diaries
Misc
Download
Gallery
Music
Screenshots
Videos
Miscellaneous
Staff Members
Privacy Statement
|
|
|
|
Moriendor
Black Ring Leader
Joined: 19 Jul 2001
Posts: 1306
Location: Germany |
| Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion - Preview @ GameSpy |
|
GameSpy has slapped up an in-depth (5-pager) <a href="http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/the-elder-scrolls-iv-oblivion/558955p1.html" target="_blank">preview</a> of Bethesda's fourth installment in the 'Elder Srolls' saga.<blockquote><em>Bethesda Softworks has never been a company that could be accused of thinking small. Their flagship property, The Elder Scrolls series of RPGs, have always been known for their vastness and wide-open feeling. Long before anyone ever came up with the idea for an MMO, Bethesda was hard at work creating enormous artificial worlds inside the PC in which one could get lost. Their last game, however, Morrowind (along with its two expansion packs, Tribunal and Bloodmoon), went far beyond what even the company's most die-hard fans could have expected.
<br>
<br>Morrowind was literally a world in which you could do anything you set your mind to. Want to go on the main quest of the story? Go ahead. Want to forget the quest and just become the wealthiest merchant in the land? The game could handle it. Perhaps you'd like to join a tribe of werewolves and bring pain and death down on the human inhabitants of Tamriel. The game could handle that too. Morrowind offered the huge worlds of exploration and adventure that make MMOs so compelling, but the experience was personalized for the player, something impossible in an MMO.</em></blockquote> |
Sat Oct 23, 2004 7:38 pm |
|
|
Fleisch
Village Dweller
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 10
Location: USA |
Oh well, so much for that. Thanks for the helpful preview. Makes it clear I won't be able to play this game, which is now fully an action game. Apparently when ESIII was ported to X-Box, the D&D conventions (to-hit die rolls) underlying the game confused the console gamers, who couldn't figure out why they were swinging and missing. So hitting is now dependent on your reflexes and not your character stats. The author claims that action gamers "won't necessarily have an unfair advantage" because the stats will modify what your reflexes do. Well, it may not be unfair, but it will certainly be an advantage because you still need the reflexes in the first place, and I don't have them, or like that kind of game. Goodbye, Bethesda. And so much for Fallout 3, as well, I'm sure. |
|
Sat Oct 23, 2004 7:41 pm |
|
|
TheMadGamer
High Emperor
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 487
Location: Southern California |
quote:
Originally posted by Fleisch
which is now fully an action game. Apparently when ESIII was ported to X-Box, the D&D conventions (to-hit die rolls) underlying the game confused the console gamers, who couldn't figure out why they were swinging and missing. So hitting is now dependent on your reflexes and not your character stats.
You might want to re-read the article again. It isn't quite like you seem to think it is.
Yes, with regard to combat, they are blurring the line a bit between the character and the player. But stats and die-rolls are still ocurring to determine effectiveness. The example in the article explains that to block, the player will now have to initiate a block (instead of the computer performing a die roll to check if a block will occur), BUT how well the block absorbs damage will be done via a die roll based on your stats.
This actually sounds interesting and could make combat more fun.
Anyway, I for one didn't walk away from that article with the perception that Oblivion is going to be some kind of first person shooter/action game.
_________________
The Poster Previously Known As NeptiOfPovar |
|
Sat Oct 23, 2004 9:26 pm |
|
|
Fleisch
Village Dweller
Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 10
Location: USA |
quote:
You might want to re-read the article again. It isn't quite like you seem to think it is.
Yes, with regard to combat, they are blurring the line a bit between the character and the player. But stats and die-rolls are still ocurring to determine effectiveness. The example in the article explains that to block, the player will now have to initiate a block (instead of the computer performing a die roll to check if a block will occur), BUT how well the block absorbs damage will be done via a die roll based on your stats.
No, I think I got what the article meant; however, you may not have realized the complete lack of hand-eye coordination that I possess, and my inability to do anything beyond mash a single button over and over, if faced with realtime combat.
This makes a Diablo-style action game marginally playable, but no other kind. The fact that I would have to manually initiate the action to block a blow (presumably a different action/button than simply attacking) renders my character's stats meaningless. It doesn't matter how effective my character's stats would be in performing the block since I, the gamer behind the stats, will not be able to carry out that maneuver in the first place.
I base this on long experience trying to play any first-person perspective game that calls itself on action RPG. System Shock, Deus Ex, Thief, Gothic. I don't last more than 5 minutes in any of those. I had to give up on KOTOR because I was never able to get through the part where you had to shoot down the fighters in outer space. Anyway, 3D games tend to make me motionsick. I was barely able to manage Morrowind in its previous incarnation. I'll just to have to stick to my turn-based niche; I was merely lamenting the fact that it was increasingly smaller. Well, at least there's plenty of room for me, since there aren't many people in this niche. The rest of you may carry on. |
|
Sat Oct 23, 2004 11:00 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
quote:
Originally posted by Fleisch
This makes a Diablo-style action game marginally playable, but no other kind.
/shrug
Based on the current information, I'd say you're overstating the 'action' argument. |
|
Sun Oct 24, 2004 3:17 am |
|
|
Guest
|
If anything, Bethesda is understating what an RPG is. In an RPG you take on the ego of a character. This character usually has a role or skills like warrior, wizard, etc. A character that is a warrior, skilled in the art of swordsmanship and melee combat should know when to block or attack and when to block or attack. If I have to tell him when to block, and my reflexes decide if he blocks, then I am not playing a role, I am playing myself. If I am playing myself I am not playing a role playing game, I am just playing an action game. Hence, ES 4 is not a role-playing game, just an action game with role playing elements.
Those games can be good or great, like Gothic and Arx Fatalis, but what they can't be are actual RPGs. Just as sometimes a pie can be better than cake, but it will never be cake. You can have a pie-cake or a cake-pie, or a cake, or a pie. But only a pie will ever be an actual pie, and a cake will only only be an actual cake. A pie-cake or a cake-pie is neither a pie or a cake. It is something different. Like a pie with elements of cake, or a cake with elements of pie.
Bethesda's cake-pie claims to be a pie, but it can't be a pie when it is just as much cake. it can't be just a cake either (action game) since it has elements of pie (rpg game).
Sometimes cake-pie is better than just pie, but it is not pie. |
|
Sun Oct 24, 2004 10:02 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous
If I have to tell him when to block, and my reflexes decide if he blocks, then I am not playing a role, I am playing myself.
That's true, Bethesda is blurring the lines a bit between the player and the character.
But one consistent gripe about stat-based rpgs continues to be about how 'boring' or 'uninvolving' combat is.
For combat to be more involving, somehow the player has to be more involved. But by doing so, you blur the lines between player and character.
But technicalities aside, it remains to be seen if blurring the lines just a bit when it comes to combat is more fun or not. If it's more fun, then bring it on! |
|
Mon Oct 25, 2004 1:29 am |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
The thrill in turn based is watching a well oiled machine work. Your character or team is mowing down the competition because you came up with a winning combination of skills and tactics.
It's different than the thrill of beating Mortal Kombat (a feat I have never managed to do despite countless other fighting games) but it is a thrill. It's unfortunate that immersiveness is coming at the cost of tactical saavy in newer games.
Not that this is particularly relevant to Elder Scrolls, which has always been real time first person combat. I don't mind the idea of always connecting (but not neccessarily harming based on armor and such of a creature or target) if the opponent doesn't block or dodge. It's the natural evolution to Elder Scrolls combat which has always depended on player reflex as much as character skill.
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:01 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
I disagree. ES has not been mostly about reflexes. I've never played Arena but In both DF and MW My reflexes consisted mostly of being able to point my curser at the enemy. IN DF I had to hold down the mouse button and move the mouse towards me to slash, repeate, repeate. In MW I clicked the always use best attack option and all I had to do was click a mouse botton. My reflexes have never really mattered in ES.
I do not consider DF or MW real rpgs, but combat wise they are more so than Gothic, which requires you to have nimble fingers and precise timing.
I also miss the days of party TB combat of the real rpgs. I wish Trokia would reuse their ToEE assets to make a TB party game that is distributed by them over the internet. When I think of rpg combat done right I think of ToEE and Realms of Arkania. But I had a lot of fun playing simple combat twitch games like Zelda. Some action rpgs need RT twitch combat; system shock would have not been scary at all if when a zombie-thing came charging you it switched into TB mode. Gothic went overboard though, that game is impossible. I love hard and challenging combat when TB, but I just don't have what it takes to play Gothic. I hope ES4 does not go that route. |
|
Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:16 am |
|
|
EverythingXen
Arch-villain
Joined: 01 Feb 2002
Posts: 4342
|
I made it to the last chapter of gothic using a Pickaxe, Digger pants, and magical artifacts only. Combat isn't that hard. 
Yes, Daggerfall was a joke... get into a fight, use unarmed, and move the mouse all over the place as fast as you could (if you had a high speed you'd rattle off 3 attacks a second  ). However, you DID need to move the mouse a lot to be successful... not just click 'attack' and then look to see if you hit and for how much damage.
Morrowind's combat was also a joke... press the mouse, hold for one second, release mouse.
The more I'm thinking about the proposed combat is Oblivion the more I'm looking forward to it... ES has always WANTED player driven combat but has always delivered a weak implementation to date.
It can never compete with the joy of a well made Turn Base for me (Like ToEE) but it will do if the rest of the game is interesting.
_________________
Estuans interius, Ira vehementi
"The old world dies and with it the old ways. We will rebuild it as it should be, MUST be... Immortal!"
=Member of the Nonflamers Guild=
=Worshipper of the Written Word= |
|
Tue Oct 26, 2004 2:37 pm |
|
|
TheMadGamer
High Emperor
Joined: 03 May 2002
Posts: 487
Location: Southern California |
quote:
Originally posted by EverythingXen
The thrill in turn based is watching a well oiled machine work. Your character or team is mowing down the competition because you came up with a winning combination of skills and tactics.
Agreed. In games like Baldur's Gate, NWN, and TtoEE that implementation works quite well and is fun and satisfying.
But in a first person single character game, I do think it's a bit boring to implement a stat-only-based combat system. I like the direction Gothic and Gothic 2 have taken, though their implementation was a bit clunky.
If Bethesda can deliver a well animated and smooth combat system in the spirit that Gothic 2 delivers, I think it could be fun.
_________________
The Poster Previously Known As NeptiOfPovar |
|
Tue Oct 26, 2004 5:55 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
Xen,
I understand that you enjoyed the combat of Gothic, MW's wasn't that fun. But the fact that you can handle the Gothic combat doesn't mean that it wasn't overly difficult, which is subjective. Playing through ToEE in ironman mode was overly difficult for most people, but I thought it was just the right challenge. But no one was forced to play ironman. Some people, amazingly, thought the combat in Kotor was too difficult, but they had difficulty scales.
If timing is required in Oblivion, or multiple button pushing, on the scale of Gothic and Gothic 2 then the ES series is closed off to me. I'm sure new action minded gamers will more than make up for my, and the few other people who are too slow and lack the hand dexterity to play these kind of action games, absense. If I was the man in charge of Bethesda I would take the road that makes more money. But the original point of this post is some semi-rpg action games are turning even more semi-rpg and more action game.
Lets break it down. In every pen and paper rpg (which crpgs are based off of) you create a character, give the character a name, and he is sent off into the world and your personal dexterity or timing has no effect on the game at all. You talk to npcs and your stats and background and actions have an impact on reaction and dialogue. Blah blah.
In Gothic you do not create a character, you do not pick his name, your dex and timing rule combat. Dialogue is impacted by actions only since every player has the same exact background and there is no stats that impact dialogue or reaction.
What Gothic has is a living, breathing world, a good story, and fun action twitch combat.
Now compare DF to MW. DF's character gen destroys MW hands down, I probably spent more time creating characters and classes than playing DF. Every thing I liked about DF was removed or simplified for MW. Keeping that in mind what should I expect from ES4?
But that doesn't matter, I don't even know what point I was trying to make. I had one one I think. Not only are my fingers slow but I guess my mind is also. |
|
Tue Oct 26, 2004 7:31 pm |
|
|
Mike Russo
Guest
|
quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous
A character that is a warrior, skilled in the art of swordsmanship and melee combat should know when to block or attack and when to block or attack. If I have to tell him when to block, and my reflexes decide if he blocks, then I am not playing a role, I am playing myself. If I am playing myself I am not playing a role playing game, I am just playing an action game.
Wow. Now *that's* a fallacy. You do realize that by this logic, a "game" where you picked a character class and then the computer played through a story without you liftiing a finger would be an RPG, while, say, Planescape: Torment wouldn't be, because by picking a particular dialogue option you're just playing yourself, and instead the character should know what he wants to say, and just go ahead and say it without any player input, right?
I mean, come on, "I dislike action-y combat on general aesthetic grounds" or "I disliked action-y combat because I suck at it" or a variety of other explanations are all well and good, but "action-y combat makes a game not an RPG because the hallmark of an RPG is taking some/many/most/all decisions affecting gameplay away from the player" is ridiculous on its face. |
|
Tue Oct 26, 2004 9:32 pm |
|
|
Guest
|
Where is the fallacy? If you play a role you make the decisions for the character. You can't play a role when you watch. Playing a role needs involvement. In NWN when or PST or BG when I wanted a lock picked did I pick the lock? Or did my character? Did I give the character I created a unique personaility and then role play to the best of my ability through the dialoque choices presented to me? Or did I sa, "Hmmm, what would I say if I was in this situation?" If I was in most of the situations that my characters got in in those games my reaction would probably be grovle and beg for my life, then run like a sissy. But I do not play me, I play Billy the warrior or whatever.
Billy the warrior who knows a lot better than I when a swordsman should block, him being a swordsman and all, and me being just a geek playing an rpg. If you were playing a pen and paper rpg and when your master thief came to a locked chest and you told the gm he wants to pick the lock, and the gm gave you a lock to pick in real life, and said, "Your character will succeed in picking the lock in the game only if you do in real life." Would that be playing a role? Is it smarty pants? You are not a master thief, the character you are playing the role of is. His skill and abilities should be the sole deciding factor if the lock is picked or not. Playing his role you decide when and if he picks a lock, he decides (and a dice roll or whatever mechanics are in place) if it gets picked. End of story, no rooom for argument. That is role playing.
I never said I didn't like action games with rpg elements. I liked the game world of Gothic enough to load and reload 5000 on a little piece of crap raptor before I went into marvin god mode and advanced through the story invulnerable. I love zelda. I liked arx fatalis. I liked fable. I enjoyed all these action games. But they are not rpgs. X-com and FF Tactics on the PS are some of my favorite games, but they are not rpgs, though they have TB combat.
An rpg is an rpg. An action game is an action game. A hybrid is a hybrid. An action game with rpg elements is a hybrid, and therefor cannot in the name of sanity be called an rpg. It can be called an action game with rpg elements, because guess what? Thats what it is.
FF tactics and x-com might have the crpg combat I love, but they have no other critical elements of an rpg and therefor cannot be a real rpg. |
|
Tue Oct 26, 2004 10:48 pm |
|
|
Mike Russo
Guest
|
Don't have time to write a full response, but the fallacy, in short, is that you're privileging certain choices above others, without having any sort of framework for the differentiation (additionally, your analogy to actually picking a lock when your character does is a complete canard -- pressing a button to block in no way resembles actually blocking).
Now, you could argue that the problem isn't having to choose when to block per se -- in fact, by allowing you manual control over blocking, you as a player have greater control over your player's combat style, which is presumably a good thing. Rather, the problem is that in the heat of combat, managing to manipulate the controls such that you can both attack and defend at a skill level appropriate to the master swordsman you imagine your avatar to be is difficult, and you want to offload some of that decision-making off to the computer to facilitate the combat experience and concentrate on more strategic choices. Or maybe you think out-of-combat decisions are interesting, and the details of in-combat decisions aren't. Or maybe you think that discrete, low-granularity decisions are interesting, and smaller, high-granularity decisions aren't (although, if this is the case, you're unlikely to enjoy the Elder Scrolls games at all, since the emergent interaction of many low-level elements seems to me to be a major design paradigm for the series) But you didn't argue any of that, and in the absence of any rubric for deciding what kinds of decisions are "bad" and which are "good", you were left flailing around and exiling certain games from the RPG fold by fiat. |
|
Wed Oct 27, 2004 4:04 am |
|
|
|
Goto page 1, 2 Next
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat Apr 13, 2019 3:09 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
