Preview GameInformer's Oblivion info

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Well, they probably did it to please some fans who wanted it, I don't understand how it's hurting you guys even if you were to play it. You simply don't have to join them all.

That I recall, no one said we were being forced.

Your analogy is stupid because it shouldn't be hurting your gameplay at all (if it is, it's your own stubborness), it's there for kids who want to join them all.

No, my analogy actually picks up on your suggestion and applies it to a possible real life situation to show that it's your argument that's stupid. You suggest that something that would be harmful to gameplay, in terms of balance and design, should be ignored, when I pointed out that ignoring doesn't make it any less problematic. The analogy applies. Do I have to draw out the parallels one by one myself so you can understand it?

Really, this isn't real life.

I'm so glad you got that one right. That's right, it's a game. And we're discussing it. Keep up with the program and don't even try using the stale argument that since its a game it shouldn't be taken seriously.

This isn't some horrible neighborhood that will kill you or steal from you. It's a design decision to give most likely the majority what they want, and something the hardcore realists (or whatever you want to be) can ignore so easily.

It's funny that everytime I see someone pointing out what they perceive to be a problem in a game, they're automatically labelled some utterly dumbfounding term. No plin, I'm not a "hardcore realist". In fact, I don't care about realism in games. You'll rarely see me ask for it or take it into account. I care about credibility, which is different. As such, I care that a game presents me with a situation where two factions that do not get along with each other suddenly presents me with a situation where both display no qualms about having an operative working for (and possibly against) both. Simply put, its nonsensical and is running contrary to what was initially designed.

If you want to be able to join only one, restrict yourself. Role-play in a role-playing game if you must. Go the path you want to and let some kids have fun being in all of them. Big deal.

So now, you go from suggesting that people should ignore something to suggesting roleplaying will somehow make it better? Please. Using roleplaying as an excuse for being willfully ignorant doesn't suit you. Wheter I roleplay or not, the problem will be there regardless. Suggesting that I should roleplay and contain myself is useless because that does not lessen the severity of the problem nor does it excuse it.

 

[plin]

Yes, I said hardcore realist (just my own ignorant description) because you see a design decision in the game, and you don't think it's very realistic to it's setting. Again, It's you're own stubborness if this is getting to you. Of cource not all situations in life can be simply ignored, or not all situations in life can be ignored and it makes it go away, or makes it better, but this is a video game, and in this video game the designers chose to give more freedom to the player in letting them join all the faction in one sitting if they willed. Ignore it, problem solved in this instance, everyone wins. And I'm not saying it just because it's a video game, but because it's something in a video game that is so small, that shouldn't matter unless you make it a problem. I could understand if they forced you, if you were mad because it's real time, or turn-based, but the fact is, you could still play it as you would have otherwise even if it was restricted to one. It should have no effect on you since you only want one. It's just there, more freedom.

You're not ignoring being a witness to a murder, you're not ignoring some life altering situation. As we've both amazingly discovered, it's just a video game, and it's not hurting you. You can quote my post and retort each sentance but it doesn't matter, the fact is, you can ignore it, and it's no big deal. Some dumb kids can join all the factions because it's been their life long dream, and you can go through it with one.

yay

 

[mr. lamat]

ten pages? is the game done yet?

 

[Sol Invictus]

I would think so, based on the comments.

 

[merry andrew]

ten pages? is the game done yet?

Nah, that's just 6 days worth of discussion.

 

[mr. lamat]

i made a lesbian couple on the sims2. one is named "second knuckledeep" and the other is named "fist of the northstar".

not sure what that has to do with anything...

 

[Stark]

Yes, I said hardcore realist (just my own ignorant description) because you see a design decision in the game, and you don't think it's very realistic to it's setting. Again, It's you're own stubborness if this is getting to you. Of cource not all situations in life can be simply ignored, or not all situations in life can be ignored and it makes it go away, or make it better, but this is a video game, and in this video game the designers chose to give more freedom to the player in letting them join all the faction in one sitting if they willed. Ignore it, problem solved in this instance, everyone wins. And I'm not saying it just because it's a video game, but because it's something in a video game that is so small, that shouldn't matter unless you make it a problem. I could understand if they forced you, if you were mad because it's real time, or turn-based, but the fact is, you could still play it as you would have otherwise even if it was restricted to one. It should have no effect on you since you only want one. It's just there, more freedom.

You're not ignoring being a witness to a murder, you're not ignoring some life altering situation. As we've both amazingly discovered, it's just a video game, and it's not hurting you. You can quote my post and retort each sentance but it doesn't matter, the fact is, you can ignore it, and it's no big deal. Some dumb kids can join all the factions because it's been their life long dream, and you can go through it with one.

yay

wow. going by your logic there's no need to argue anything at all in this video game forum. Guys, we can all head home now. Exitium can close down the forum now.

The ability to allow one to join all the factions do disturb me. In Morrowind there're very good reasons why, by joining certain guilds exclude me from others, fleshing out (somewhat) the competative undercurrent between the different factions/guilds.

depending on how they implement this, it may be a bad thing. if the game allow a player to join all the factions so long as you walk up and ask to join, it's going to be very lame. it would imply the supposedly competative nature between the different factions are either not existant or not carried over to the ingame mechanics, and that'll lessen my enjoyment of game/suspension of believe considerably.

the argument that you, as a player, can choose not to join all the guilds, does not address the problem above.

Granted we still dunno how it's done in TES4. it may be very difficult (involving quite alot of additional effort but ultimately possible) to allow a player to join all. If that's the case then i've no problem with it.

 

[plin]

Yes, I said hardcore realist (just my own ignorant description) because you see a design decision in the game, and you don't think it's very realistic to it's setting. Again, It's you're own stubborness if this is getting to you. Of cource not all situations in life can be simply ignored, or not all situations in life can be ignored and it makes it go away, or make it better, but this is a video game, and in this video game the designers chose to give more freedom to the player in letting them join all the faction in one sitting if they willed. Ignore it, problem solved in this instance, everyone wins. And I'm not saying it just because it's a video game, but because it's something in a video game that is so small, that shouldn't matter unless you make it a problem. I could understand if they forced you, if you were mad because it's real time, or turn-based, but the fact is, you could still play it as you would have otherwise even if it was restricted to one. It should have no effect on you since you only want one. It's just there, more freedom.

You're not ignoring being a witness to a murder, you're not ignoring some life altering situation. As we've both amazingly discovered, it's just a video game, and it's not hurting you. You can quote my post and retort each sentance but it doesn't matter, the fact is, you can ignore it, and it's no big deal. Some dumb kids can join all the factions because it's been their life long dream, and you can go through it with one.

yay

wow. going by your logic there's no need to argue anything at all in this video game forum.
.

Not at all. My logic is: If they made it so you can be in all factions in one sitting, rather then restricting it to only one, it isn't going to hurt your gameplay (you would/could still play it as if there was a restriction), it's only helping others. And it should be ignored if you don't like it, because, it's not that big of a deal, and it can easily be ignored.

Amazing logic huh?

 

[Stark]

well, hope you did read the rest of my post up there about game mechanics that allow you to join all factions...

I'm not pro or against, since we really dunno how it'll turn out, but i think there're valid objections there.

My logic is: If they made it so you can be in all factions in one sitting, rather then restricting it to only one, it isn't going to hurt your gameplay (you would/could still play it as if there was a restriction), it's only helping others. And it should be ignored if you don't like it, because, it's not that big of a deal, and it can easily be ignored.

imagine in a medieval game there's bazooka available as a weapon. you can argue "you can choose not to use it!!!", but the fact is the presence/option to use a bazooka already destroy the suspension of believe and subsequent enjoyment i get from a game.

abit extreme, but i think it illustrates the point.

 

[plin]

well, hope you did read the rest of my post up there about game mechanics that allow you to join all factions...

I'm not pro or against, since we really dunno how it'll turn out, but i think there're valid objections there.

Well, we weren't discussing how they would do it. But I do see what your saying.

Anyways, I'm done on the subject, I've made my point.

 

[Seven]

That must be where I'm missing it. I didn't know that a failed to-hit roll was equivalent to a block or dodge. To have a failed to-hit roll result in an on-screen miss, either the player has to physically move its character off-course, or the opponent has to dodge the attack.

Could you link me to some information about Bloodlines' FPS to-hit rolls? I'm sorta busy and sorta lazy too

It amounts to a compromise. Hit-roll misses and successful dodges/blocks would have to amount to the same thing; the alternative would be having that four foot clamour going through the opponent and doing no damage which is something that we want to avoid happening.

As for Bloodlines, just look up some old news links or go to gamespot and check the diary done by Leonard.

 

[merry andrew]

the alternative would be having that four foot clamour going through the opponent and doing no damage which is something that we want to avoid happening.

It wouldn't necessarily go through them... it would just bounce off of them and do 0 damage, which makes sense to me.

 

[wintermane]

In daggerfall you could join all the factions too so its not exactly comming out of left field that oblivion does it that way. Unlike in morrowind where the great houses were formerly at war and still basicaly ARE tho wont call it such in this game your dealing with factions that have never ever been at war with each other... tho a little sniping is allowed;/

Now the real question in my mind is why the bloody hell do I remember that and what important crap did I forget to store that in my mind!!!!!!! BAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ive been following morrowind faction threads for too damn long!!

 

[Elwro]

Now the real question in my mind is why the bloody hell do I remember that and what important crap did I forget to store that in my mind!!!!!!! BAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yeah, I also ask myself this sometimes. Dude, what garbage cans we've made from our brains.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Yes, I said hardcore realist (just my own ignorant description) because you see a design decision in the game, and you don't think it's very realistic to it's setting.

What part of "I don't care about realism" was hard for you to understand, plin?

Again, It's you're own stubborness if this is getting to you.

It's not 'getting to me', it's something I think is wrong and I'm calling it as I see it. And there's a big difference between pointing out something I perceive to be a problem, and between a problem existing because I'm stubborn. Wheter I'm stubborn or not, it's still there.

Of cource not all situations in life can be simply ignored, or not all situations in life can be ignored and it makes it go away, or makes it better, but this is a video game,

You might as well come clean and say that it's a videogame and that you think it shouldn't be discussed or evaluated in a serious way. I mean, it might just be me, but based on your constant reminder that a videogames isn't real life, that seems to be your mindset on this subject.

and in this video game the designers chose to give more freedom to the player in letting them join all the faction in one sitting if they willed. Ignore it, problem solved in this instance, everyone wins.

Do you know what a faction is, plin? If you don't, here's a little primer: it's a group of individuals with their own set of beliefs and ideals, usually a minority within a larger group. They are considered a faction primarilly because their beliefs place them at odds with already established mindsets, ideals or struggles. In essence, they directly oppose, or hold certain beliefs in different lights, than those of (usually) larger groups. After all, if they had the same motivations and ideals, they wouldn't need to be a faction at all, would they?

With that said, explain (if you can) how me ignoring the fact that factions will be accepting a player which is a member of all factions will solve the discrepancy. Explain how me ignoring it will make the suspension of disbelief not collapse.

And I'm not saying it just because it's a video game, but because it's something in a video game that is so small, that shouldn't matter unless you make it a problem. I could understand if they forced you, if you were mad because it's real time, or turn-based, but the fact is, you could still play it as you would have otherwise even if it was restricted to one. It should have no effect on you since you only want one. It's just there, more freedom.

Seriously, you've got to be kidding. It would be as incongruous to the game as being able to join, and work for, the Brotherhood of Steel and the Mutant Army simultaneously in Fallout, without having repercussions for doing so. Do you actually think being allowed to join and work for two factions which have different goals, attitudes and do not like each other is small? That this kind of contradiction is not a problem at all? That's its only a problem if I make it one?

I call pure, unadultered bullshit on that one, plin.

You're not ignoring being a witness to a murder, you're not ignoring some life altering situation. As we've both amazingly discovered, it's just a video game, and it's not hurting you. You can quote my post and retort each sentance but it doesn't matter, the fact is, you can ignore it, and it's no big deal. Some dumb kids can join all the factions because it's been their life long dream, and you can go through it with one.

So your point is "dude, you can prove me wrong all you want but I still win because I think you can ignore it and live happily ever after"? Do tell if I misundestood it, because that's the feeling I get.

Don't you get it that you're basically suggesting that any inconsistanct in a game's design, wheter individual or global, in a game, is fine because we can ignore it? You have no idea what this leads to, do you? It leads to the an overal lenience on your part (and others as well) towards that kind of situation. In fact, that same mindset can be used against you by developers.

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

It's interesting to see the vast amounts of discussion resulting from ONE sentence about factions in the first article about the game

Oh, and as to the relationship of a "to hit" roll and a successful opponent dodge or block: the opponent's skills & stats, along with a random element, govern the opponent's decisions -- block, attack, maneuver -- so there IS a random component to the PC's blow missing or being blocked. It's not a "to hit" roll in the p&p sense, where a player rolls against their character's stats to see if the hit is successful -- it's more analogous to the gm making a "saving" roll to see if the opponent blocks or dodges the blow.

So given that, the only use a "to hit" roll would have would be to determine if an unblocked blow made within the weapon's reach and arc actually hits. In Morrowind, that roll existed . In Oblivion, the roll doesn't exist -- you swing, and if an enemy is within the weapon's reach and arc, you hit -- but the damage formulas have been altered so that the amount of damage done is based more on the PC's skills & stats as described earlier. So if your character sucks with blunt weapons, you're not going to do much damage with that hammer, but you'll still land blows if you're close enough.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

It's interesting to see the vast amounts of discussion resulting from ONE sentence about factions in the first article about the game

There's been arguments for less than a sentence in the past

 

[Mendoza]

Do you know what a faction is, plin? If you don't, here's a little primer: it's a group of individuals with their own set of beliefs and ideals, usually a minority within a larger group. They are considered a faction primarilly because their beliefs place them at odds with already established mindsets, ideals or struggles. In essence, they directly oppose, or hold certain beliefs in different lights, than those of (usually) larger groups. After all, if they had the same motivations and ideals, they wouldn't need to be a faction at all, would they?

Depends what the factions represent though. The Fighters guild in Morrowind was basically a organisation of mercenaries to killed/delivered/collected of cash. The Mages guild was mostly about research and collection of lore. The Imperial Cult (now Nine Divines) was a benevolent religion that had you collecting alms and killing witches.

None of these conflict with each other or have opposing beliefs, so why shouldn't you be able to join all 3?

Also, to take Morrowind as an example, you could be in the Thieves guild and House Redoran. If the Thieves guild asked you to steal something from House Redoran and you got caught, you'd get expelled. Basically, each of the factions had rules, and as long as you didn't break them you could stay in the faction. I'm not saying it was a great system, but there were controls in place so you couldn't do everything for every guild without being careful.

Personally, I don't mind a system where you can join every guild, if only to try them out, but where there's a limit to the rank you can achieve in a guild before you have to make a choice of which one to stay with. I think 'choose your loyalties' quests would be nice, where to advance further in one guild you have to do something that will get you chucked out/never allowed to join another guild.

But in the case of the Mage and Fighters guild for example, unless they happen to be opposed in Oblivion, I don't see why you couldn't advance far in both of them.

 

[Volourn]

"There's been arguments for less than a sentence in the past"

No. :wink:


P.S. To be semi on topic, factions are good. I could see one being able to join multiple fanctions as long as they don't either actively oppose each other or their morals/ideals/doings are so different as to run the risk of full fledge conflict. Excepting, of course, quests involving espionage..

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Do you know what a faction is, plin? If you don't, here's a little primer: it's a group of individuals with their own set of beliefs and ideals, usually a minority within a larger group. They are considered a faction primarilly because their beliefs place them at odds with already established mindsets, ideals or struggles. In essence, they directly oppose, or hold certain beliefs in different lights, than those of (usually) larger groups. After all, if they had the same motivations and ideals, they wouldn't need to be a faction at all, would they?

Depends what the factions represent though. The Fighters guild in Morrowind was basically a organisation of mercenaries to killed/delivered/collected of cash. The Mages guild was mostly about research and collection of law. The Imperial Cult (now Nine Divines) was a benevolent religion that had you collect alms and killing witches.

None of these conflict with each other or have opposing beliefs, so why shouldn't you be able to join all 3?

Note the difference between joining 3 and joining all. That's my point. I already mentioned that factions can be either direct opposites or only slighty changed when it comes to mindsets and goals. Factions with similar mindsets probably wouldn't care much, and could even benefit from an operative like that; when it comes to increasingly different factions it becomes harder to justify the allegiance. To bring an example I made earlier, in Fallout, there would likely be no problem if the PC could have joined up with the Brotherhood of Steel, and the Gun Runners. That wouldn't have brought up any immediate problem that I can think of. Now imagine you could join those two, plus the Mutant Army and the Master. Now imagine on top of that, you joined with the Slaver's Guild and the Rangers.

Doesn't make much sense, now does it? Thats basically the kind of situation I'm against.

As you said so yourself, different rules can apply between different factions, but this is only considering factions which are either friendly or neutral to each other. Unless all the factions are just sharing the same goals, or slightly different ones, which I would find that that would be useless.

Even then, I think it would be interesting to just do away with factions. Why not try something different, like having one major House with generals who have different mindsets, all trying to make the House's Council to support them? This would enable, amont other things, to cut down on the creation of X number factions and have those different philosophies be presented instead by said generals. You could even have the player decide which cause to support, and the more you worked for one such general, the more the main House would listen to him, and simultaneously approve and support his methods, in essence changing much of the House's doctrine itself.

 

[Mugwump]

I'm not sure if I missed the point. If, in a FPS style game, the to-hit roll fails, it is possible to swing your weapon through an opponent,

My whole point is that this should not be happening. To be perfectly clear, when a role fails then the weapon should miss both in terms of it's representation on screen and in terms of a failure to do damage. So your weapon should not swing through an opponent.

To eliminate this discrepency, the new ES game will not have to-hit rolls.

This "discrepency" is what I would call a bug; so why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why get rid of rolls; instead make the screen representations reflect the rolls. Look at KOTOR, when you struck an opponent damage was done, and when you didn't it was reprsented as a block or miss, and all the while they managed to keep combat stat driven.

I find it awfully conceited of you to call that a bug, especially considering it is just the expression of your conservatism. What Bethesda is implementing is a breakthrough in computer role playing game:

Are you stuck in that old way of handling combat? it is directly inherited from the era of Pen and paper roleplaying games. and if rolling dice is fully justified when playing on a table with your friends why shouldn't computer roleplaying games evolve to a gameplay adapted to its media?

you want a percentage chance of hitting your opponent who's standing in front of you? in the name of what? realism? fun? because that's the law when you make a roleplaying game? well I once made a post on the Morrowind forums complaining that I shouldnt be missing when striking someone I managed to hit in game and I only faced similar misunderstanding but who knows maybe the devs like it...

you call that bug: the almighty roll should Dictate the outcome and if it says you miss :the graphics should mirror that maybe? maybe an failure animation?
My answer won't be that it is too difficult to implement it would just be ridiculous unrealistic and silly to have such an animation.

well, I have that much to say: imagine you are holding a sword or a knife, that you go down the street you go hit a tree. what is your percentage chance of hitting that tree? I mean regardless of your profession, or class, it's still 100% because that tree is standing there because you are standing there next to it and you dont need the brains of Einstein and the skills of Jet Li to be sure of hitting that tree. well now if you try hitting a person that's a bit different: that person doesnt want to be hit it's going to stop you ( block) or to dodge your blow and certainly try to hit back. Sooo what are your chances going to be? still 100% except if that person is trying to block and dodge
and the game is offering that: enemies that block and dodge so I guess your attack skill will only influence how much damage your make and your enemy's defence skill will work to reduce that damage or simply cancel your attack and I guess how well your enemies move in front of you to avoid being hit you will just have to move around to target your opponent better.

I want to stress that if you can't miss someone or something in front of you imagine someone who claims to be a fighter does, think that he / she would have a chance of missing?

 

[Vault Dweller]

Are you stuck in that old way of handling combat?

Sounds like some wacky advertisement to me.

Stuck in that old way of handling combat? < a picture of an idiot clicking randomly in frustration> Too dumb to figure out how to play a game? <a picture of the same idiot unsuccessfully trying to understand a manual> In our mass market friendly game you never miss, in fact, you can not miss even you want to. Our brand new trajectory-correcting technologies will always auto guide your hits and land them ... <a picture of a happy idiot screaming: IN YOUR FACE!>

it is directly inherited from the era of Pen and paper roleplaying games. and if rolling dice is fully justified when playing on a table with your friends why shouldn't computer roleplaying games evolve to a gameplay adapted to its media?

Are you saying that we didn't have proper technologies to come up with the always-hit algorithm back in the PnP days? What a breakthrough!

well, I have that much to say: imagine you are holding a sword or a knife, that you go down the street you go hit a tree. what is your percentage chance of hitting that tree? I mean regardless of your profession, or class, it's still 100% because that tree is standing there because you are standing there next to it and you dont need the brains of Einstein and the skills of Jet Li to be sure of hitting that tree.

Are you sure you don't need the brains of Einstein? I mean, think about it, man.

 

[Sol Invictus]

When a stationary object has a to-hit % instead of a flat out 100%, it's just really stupid crap, plain and simple. It's the same with resource gathering in games like World of Warcraft. I don't see why you need a skill of 250 Herbalism to be able to harvest some plant. That's just silly.

 

[Vault Dweller]

When a stationary object has a to-hit % instead of a flat out 100%, it's just really stupid crap, plain and simple.

That depends on the object, the weapons, etc. Have you ever ... what's it called...cut the wood with an axe for a fireplace? Or try to hit a spider (not moving) with a long stick. Would you hit every time or is there a chance that you'd miss? Granted, a human or larger opponent is kinda hard to miss, but that's all depend on how dodging works. If you always hit only when dodge roll, skillcheck, whatever fails, that makes sense. If not...

It's the same with resource gathering in games like World of Warcraft. I don't see why you need a skill of 250 Herbalism to be able to harvest some plant. That's just silly.

I'm not sure how that whole thing works in WoW, and what's the difference between skill of 25 and skill of 250 is, but you definitely need to have some skill to recognize a plant, know what parts to pick (leaves, flowers, roots, etd), and how to handle them.

 

[Sol Invictus]

About your firewood point, Fair enough. It makes no sense for every object to be difficult to hit, though. Hitting a wall and missing is just plain silly.

But the way skilling/professions work in WoW and other MMORPGs pretty much breaks immersion. Basically, you upgrade your skill by looking for herbs at your skill level and pick them up until it hits 75 (the max), and then you have to go back to town to train "Advanced Herbalism", which allows you to upgrade your skill up to 200. It's just a timesink.