Preview GameInformer's Oblivion info

[merry andrew]

Who gives a flying fuck if lockpicking and pickpocketting are done as minigames?

Hmm, I dunno, people who think that the success should be determined by the skills? You know, as in role-playing?

So like...

"Success in activities like picking locks, mixing potions, and forging armor will no longer be determined by dice-roll, each of these activities will be a separate mini-game which will be completed through skill and luck...these games will be harder when your skill is low, and become easier as you increase your proficiencies"

It's oke, I can't read either

 

[Sol Invictus]

My character. You pick a dialogue option based on what your character is. The more advanced options are available based on your stats and skills. As for combat, you are not leading armies, 9 out of 10 you are deciding whom to attack/shoot at next.

Do you think that tactics isn't a skill?

Hmm, I dunno, people who think that the success should be determined by the skills? You know, as in role-playing?

Success being determined by dice is role-playing? No, that is roll-playing.

Very stupid. Don't focus on the word die, it doesn't represent an actual die and dnd dules, but the dependancy on skills and stats

Which are dependent on the presence of a die. They are simply modifiers. Who's to say Oblivion isn't going to use modifiers? Of course it is, or there wouldn't be statistics or skills. Having a higher pickpocketing and lockpicking skills (even though it's in a minigame) would allow you possibly more time, or make the minigame less difficult, or offer you more puzzle parts to complete it. Remember Anachronox?

Read here (if you can read):
"Success in activities like picking locks, mixing potions, and forging armor will no longer be determined by dice-roll, each of these activities will be a separate mini-game which will be completed through skill and luck...these games will be harder when your skill is low, and become easier as you increase your proficiencies"

Here's your translation: "Oh wow, suddenly it's not role-playing anymore because Oblivion will be completely bereft of skills and everyone knows role-playing games are all about the roll of the die!!!111one p.s. my name is Vault Dweller and I'm a half-wit."

I don't know. What WOULD make it an RPG? Char system and inventory?

Choices. Determining the outcome on your own. Spazmo has referred to Dungeon Siege as an RPG, a game which does not allow for any of this level of decision-making, and yet you're trying to label Oblivion as NOT an RPG? Don't make me laugh.

Rex, my retarded friend, if an RPG developer think that an RPG is about killing stuff THEN THAT'S WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT ALL RPGs. That's his design position. That's what DF and MW were. That's what Oblivion is all about. That's what FO3 will be like. Am I getting through here?

And TOEE is an RPG precisely because it isn't about killing stuff? Oh wait... it was.

The word "disappear" would imply that they were there in the first place. Once again, learn to read, and learn to think about what you read.

What makes you think that the implementation of graphics would prevent the game from having any dialogue? What kind of idiocy are you on now?

 

[Brillo]

Rex, my retarded friend, if an RPG developer think that an RPG is about killing stuff THEN THAT'S WHAT HE THINKS ABOUT ALL RPGs. That's his design position. That's what DF and MW were. That's what Oblivion is all about. That's what FO3 will be like. Am I getting through here?

The goal of every TES game is to create something that resembles a pen and paper RPG on the computer. Our main goal has always been to make the world as real as possible and let the player do what they want, when they want. There is a main quest, but you really don't have to follow it. The whole point of the game is to role-play the character you want, and do the things you want.

 

[Sol Invictus]

This has been yet another case of Vault Dweller taking Todd Howard (and anyone else, including Pete Hines, Feargus Urquhart, David Gaider, Greg Zeschuk, J.E. Sawyer, Chris Avellone, etc) out of context and basing his complete argument on a single sentence, completely ignoring everything else that they might've said in the same paragraph.

You could cite this thread as proof of Vault Dweller's comprehension disability in a court of law, if you wanted to.

 

[Neverwhere]

The sexy features of Morrowind's combat were

1. No action-type player control; and
2. no tactical-type player control.

Now, since those two systems appear to be mutually exclusive, one may increase EITHER 1 or 2 to actually improve the system. Sure, in a pure RPG, the focus would be on 2. But hell, they might come up with a decent action-RPG if they go for option 1.

As for mini-games, the quote explicitly mentions that the difficulty of the mini-game will vary according to your character's skill level. So it's not only the player's skill that determines the outcome. The real problem with mini-games is that they tend to get dull quickly. Everybody hated swoop racing, and you only had to do that once...

 

[Sol Invictus]

I don't think they'll be bad if there aren't a billion locked chests scattered throughout the game. Anachronox had plenty of minigames and they were neither tedious nor repititive, because each lock was slightly different than the last - providing a mental and intellectual challenge over the basic tedium of Thief 3's locked doors, and there weren't that many of them, either.

The problem with the minigames in KOTOR is that they were extremely poorly designed, and felt as if they were slapped on (which I believe they were). There wasn't a need for the swoop racing, nor was there any need for the space invaders game. They added only unnecessary irritation to the game and offered very little in terms of actual gameplay or enjoyment. The fun factor was zero in those games, as opposed to the minigames in Beyond Good & Evil and Anachronox, which are actually very enjoyable.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's oke, I can't read either

Surely you see the difference between success being determined only by your skills/stats and mingames that you, the player, play in order to pass the skill check? Yes, I've read that your character's skills affect the difficulty of mini-games, so what?

The goal of every TES game is to create something that resembles a pen and paper RPG on the computer. Our main goal has always been to make the world as real as possible and let the player do what they want, when they want. There is a main quest, but you really don't have to follow it. The whole point of the game is to role-play the character you want, and do the things you want.

The difference between this quote and the one I used in the news post, is that my quote is completely supported by the rest of the article, why the one you picked is ... just words.

This has been yet another case of Vault Dweller taking Todd Howard (and anyone else, including Pete Hines, Feargus Urquhart, David Gaider, Greg Zeschuk, J.E. Sawyer, Chris Avellone, etc) out of context and basing his complete argument on a single sentence, completely ignoring everything else that they might've said in the same paragraph.

A single sentence? What about the rest of the stuff that supports that sentense? Who's being selective now, Rex?

Do you think that tactics isn't a skill?

Tactics is. Figuring out that you should try to hit the guy who's hitting you isn't. Btw, you didn't reply to the dialogue stuff. Did I prove you wrong?

Success being determined by dice is role-playing? No, that is roll-playing.

What's success being determined by mini-games and players skills then? Clickfest?

Choices. Determining the outcome on your own.

And where were those in MW?

And TOEE is an RPG precisely because it isn't about killing stuff? Oh wait... it was.

ToEE, at least, got a great TB combat. That made it a good dungeon crawler. What TES4 got? Cool graphics?

What makes you think that the implementation of graphics would prevent the game from having any dialogue? What kind of idiocy are you on now?

If you consider that MW had dialogues....

 

[Sol Invictus]

Surely you see the difference between success being determined only by your skills/stats and mingames that you, the player, play in order to pass the skill check? Yes, I've read that your character's skills affect the difficulty of mini-games, so what?

If you can't come up with a better other than saying something as inane as 'so what?' I would again suggest taking some of those comprehension lessons. Perhaps reading a few books will alleviate the 'lack of intelligent things to say' problem that seems to burden your intellectual disposition.

The difference between this quote and the one I used in the news post, is that my quote is completely supported by the rest of the article, why the one you picked is ... just words.

See: Above

A single sentence? What about the rest of the stuff that supports that sentense? Who's being selective now, Rex?

'Rest of the stuff'? Take one thing out of context and suddenly you manage to provide a world of evidence in the face of facts to the contrary? Again, this is merely proof of your inability to grasp basic comprehension. Yes, this is an ad hominem argument on behalf of yours truly, not that you would comprehend the meaning of the aforementioned term, in case anyone is wondering.

Tactics is. Figuring out that you should try to hit the guy who's hitting you isn't. Btw, you didn't reply to the dialogue stuff. Did I prove you wrong?

No, you didn't prove me wrong. Having a higher intelligence statistic allows for a wider range of dialogue choices, similar to how a larger vocabulary is at the disposal of more intelligent people over intellectually diminutive people. I would like to know now why is it that the intelligence statistic does not allow you more options in combat? Surely a more perceptive, or intelligent person would be able to use the battlefield to his advantage in ways superior to an opponent of inferior intellect.

It's really not as simple as you think it is. Compare the behaviour of intelligent players in a multiplayer first person shooter over dimwitted AI as a startling contrast, for example. Surely, tactical maneuvers are not as simple as 'shoot target'.

What's success being determined by mini-games and players skills then? Clickfest?

Are you arguing that Morrowind wasn't a clickfest due to the die-rolling?

As a response to your argument: I anticipate that the minigames will consist of intellectual puzzles, like the 'hacking' minigame in System Shock 2, or the various ones in Anachronox. They had nothing to do with the speed at which you clicked your mouse. Surely your degree for imaginative thinking can't be as limited, or stunted as your comprehension skills.

And where were those in MW?

They were in Bloodmoon.

Asfor the original Morrowind: much like reflex-based combat, minigames, and good graphics... they (end-game choices) were not present. So why would they retain one of the worst parts of the original game?

ToEE, at least, got a great TB combat. That made it a good dungeon crawler. What TES4 got? Cool graphics?

And possibly great real time combat and gameplay. Suddenly it doesn't look so bad, does it?

If you consider that MW had dialogues....

Again, it's one of the fans' biggest complaints about the game. Alleviated, eventually, by mods and conversions.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

Morrowind's biggest problem was that the game was way too big and empty. I don't recall Fallout or Planescape Torment (two very good RPGs) ever having a world that big. What they had was a small game world, full of interesting locations, characters and things to do. What they didn't have was a big empty world full of nothing. You're saying that Bethesda is at fault now, for wanting to make their game world more focused, concise and most importantly *interesting*?

:shakes head:

Fallout's world was big, but Fallout implimented a world map so you didn't have to deal with pointless walking from Town A to Town B. It's more Morrowind's fault for not having world map travel than it is anything else.

Since when did role-playing equate to rolling a die? It's still a role-playing game REGARDLESS of the execution. A bunch of 9-sided dice do not a role-playing game make.

Since when has dice rolling NOT been a part of role-playing? Not having dice is more a matter of virtual LARPs than it is role-playing. I aim, I shoot, monster dies. Where's the use of the skills?

Again, I would much rather have a highly interactive combat system over some brainless combat system that relied solely on dice, like Morrowind did. In fact, that was one of the larger complaints people had about the game. Just ask Patrick what he thinks of Morrowind's combat system, sometime. You're saying now that shifting away from the boring 'dice-simulation' of the past is a bad thing? You're even more stupid than I imagined.

And that's mainly a problem with making first person shooter style combat in a CRPG. Either way generates problems. Either you have a system where you have shooter combat or you have that hybrid system where you have to shooter aim at something before a roll is calculated.

Oh, and melee is still fucking boring in first person, with rolls or without. The only difference is that without the rolls, it'll be over faster. Of course, there are ways to eliminate this by checking the range of the weapon versus the distance to the monsters and THEN rolling rather than force the player to stare keenly at the monster's torso while clicking that mouse button so he makes sure all the rolls are done. If it were done like that, then you could have the role-playing model in play, including all kinds of things that make for a decent system. Then you could have a system where the higher the skill not only results in hitting more often, but also the chances for a double hit, critical hit, or any number of other things.

When you lock yourself down with a first person shooter style thing, you're giving up a lot of advantages a role playing system model can have.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Well, if they plan to integrate 'action'-based combat into Oblivion I can only hope that they do it in a 3rd person fashion as opposed to the boring first person view of Morrowind. I just don't see Jedi Academy-esque combat from that POV.

That would fix more than half, if not all of the problems you brought up, which would only be evident in a first person melee game.

I wonder what they'll do.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Surely you see the difference between success being determined only by your skills/stats and mingames that you, the player, play in order to pass the skill check? Yes, I've read that your character's skills affect the difficulty of mini-games, so what?

If you can't come up with a better other than saying something as inane as 'so what?' I would again suggest taking some of those comprehension lessons.

The fact that the difficulty is determined by your skills doesn't change the fact that it's a mini-game instead of a skill check.

Perhaps reading a few books will alleviate the 'lack of intelligent things to say' problem that seems to burden your intellectual disposition.

Rex, insulting my intelligence wouldn't help you win this argument. What's with that childish "OMG! You've said bad things about a game I like" attitude?

The difference between this quote and the one I used in the news post, is that my quote is completely supported by the rest of the article, why the one you picked is ... just words.

See: Above

What am I supposed to see above? Was there an argument, a point, a position? No, there was "if you can't come up with anything better..." response, which is a waste of space. Don't reply if you don't have anything to say.

A single sentence? What about the rest of the stuff that supports that sentense? Who's being selective now, Rex?

'Rest of the stuff'? Take one thing out of context and suddenly you manage to provide a world of evidence in the face of facts to the contrary? Again, this is merely proof of your inability to grasp basic comprehension. Yes, this is an ad hominem argument on behalf of yours truly, not that you would comprehend the meaning of the aforementioned term, in case anyone is wondering.

I didn't take anything out of context, it was a one-sentence quote, and the rest of the information, that I summarized in the news post shows that this game will be, as Todd said, about killing things. Just like MW was. Pay attention.

I would like to know now why is it that the intelligence statistic does not allow you more options in combat? Surely a more perceptive, or intelligent person would be able to use the battlefield to his advantage in ways superior to an opponent of inferior intellect.

How does that relate to the discussion?

As a response to your argument: I anticipate that the minigames will consist of intellectual puzzles, like the 'hacking' minigame in System Shock 2, or the various ones in Anachronox. They had nothing to do with the speed at which you clicked your mouse.

Did I say anything at all about how the minigames will be handled? Who cares whether it's a clickfest or a chess game?

And possibly great real time combat and gameplay. Suddenly it doesn't look so bad, does it?

Well, MW was boring. So far, the only outstanding gameplay element in TES4 is the graphics. The rest does not sound interesting or exciting. You like that game, that's fine. Now, take a look at my signature, and relax.

Again, it's one of the fans' biggest complaints about the game. Alleviated, eventually, by mods and conversions.

What does that imply? That the fans will eventually release mods?

 

[merry andrew]

The fact that the difficulty is determined by your skills doesn't change the fact that it's a mini-game instead of a skill check.

You're quite a good fact checker.

Just a minor detail, though... it's a mini-game that is determined in part by a skill check.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Did I say anything at all about how the minigames will be handled? Who cares whether it's a clickfest or a chess game?

Your comprehension is failing you again

What's success being determined by mini-games and players skills then? Clickfest?

The higher difficulties will probably be incompleteable at the low skill levels, so it's probably time-based or you don't get enough 'parts' to complete it at the low levels. Anachronox did it this way.

 

[Sol Invictus]

The fact that the difficulty is determined by your skills doesn't change the fact that it's a mini-game instead of a skill check.

You're quite a good fact checker.

Just a minor detail, though... it's a mini-game that is determined in part by a skill check.

This is just VD's inability to be creative entering into the discussion again. He can't imagine a minigame which is driven in part by your skill level. He really should have a go at Anachronox and see how that game handled the minigames. For example, the higher your skill at hacking, the more time you had to hack into a terminal without being detected. Higher skill levels at lockpicking allowed you to use special parts which allowed you to 'connect' the two pipes or something like that.

 

[Ortchel]

Holy shit, Rex, don't tell me that having outcome of actions depend more on the player's ability than the character's skill is suddenly all teh RPG. For action RPGs, sure, but 'pure' RPGs should have things decided by dice rolls because you're not swinging the sword or picking the lock, your character is.

I agree with this completely. In Morrowind, with the marksman skill, your ability to hit a target was based on your aim + skill level, and I have pretty good aim, so I almost always would have scored a hit, but if my skill was low, the arrows would go *through* my targets and just not register a hit. It was a really stupid system, and thus I only used marksman on one character and never again.

I like the way Gothic handled marksman a lot better, personally. It effected your ability to hit moving targets and targets at range, it made a lot more sense.

But anyway, I find this news a little disconcerting. Minigames? I get images of Mario Party with the mention of that word .. although in reality, it'll probably be something more akin to how Thief 3 handled lockpicking, which was *ok* but I honestly prefer just straight die rolls with that stuff.

Also, I'm unsure about their definition of fantasy. Is that the best they can come up with? My definition of fantasy would be like .. well I don't know what it'd be like, but it wouldn't be "running around and killing things". COME ON.

I'm worried Oblivion is going to be Elder Scrolls: Fable.

I might have to change my signature after this ..

/despair

 

[Vault Dweller]

The fact that the difficulty is determined by your skills doesn't change the fact that it's a mini-game instead of a skill check.

You're quite a good fact checker.

Just a minor detail, though... it's a mini-game that is determined in part by a skill check.

What part of "it's a mini-game instead of a skill check" you failed to understand? I'm aware that the skill will determine the difficulty, I said that several times, but in the end, it's a fucking mini-game.

This is just VD's inability to be creative entering into the discussion again. He can't imagine a minigame which is driven in part by your skill level.

I can, SS2 had hacking mini games, and the skill there determined the difficulty (the number of nodes), but I still think that mini-games don't belong in a CRPG.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Ohhhhh nooooooo it's a mini-game. ITS A MINIGAME! Hey guys, did you hear what he said? He said MINIGAME! Oh my god! Did I hear minigame?! It's a minigame! HOLY SHIT! Oh man! A MINIGAME. CHRIST!

OMFG.

 

[jiujitsu]

You guys fight a lot.

I can't say I'm happy about the minigame thing, but he did say that your skill level would effect how easy it was. There probably wouldn't be much of a point though, because I'm sure people could handle any lock if they were good enough at the 'minigame'. Even without any skill points wasted on it. Unless it made it impossibly hard to do it unless you were more skilled.

Splinter Cell had a really cool lockpicking 'minigame'(If you would call it that.). Something to that effect could be kind of cool as long as point allocation actually mattered. I think Morrowind's lockpicking was better than that though. I like dice rolls, but Exitium is right. Just because dice rolling is what has been done in the past doesn't mean it's better. RPGs don't equal dice rolling.

 

[Ortchel]

Well, if they plan to integrate 'action'-based combat into Oblivion I can only hope that they do it in a 3rd person fashion as opposed to the boring first person view of Morrowind. I just don't see Jedi Academy-esque combat from that POV.

You can play MW in 3rd person, but I dont think that was the problem with the combat. It just .. wasn't engaging, the enemies didn't react interestingly to damage for one thing. This could have been alleviated with damage skins, a greater variety of attacks, maybe limb loss etc. Even without those spiffy graphical features it could have been done better i.e. Hexen, which to this day I still find pretty fun.

You guys should just ignore each other, this arguing is getting ridiculous.

Also, Exit, can you unban me from the #fallout channel? That bastard Spazmo banned me for 2 years.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I don't have ops there. Ask Saint.

 

[plin]

Also, Exit, can you unban me from the #fallout channel? That bastard Spazmo banned me for 2 years.

Wha'd you do to get you banned?

 

[Seven]

You know Rex, one of the quintessential features of an RPG is that it's stat/skill based. What they're affectively proposing is something that is reflex based. I'v read through you responses, and for the most part (in this topic) they don't make sense. By their logic (and yours it would appear) anything can be classified as an RPG.

 

[Stark]

I'm surprised they're going twitch based combat, but if it works anything like in Gothic, I'm fine with it.

In Gothic the chances of hitting and blocking depends on you, while the damage and speed of strike depends on your PC's stats. it works out really well. If I hit someone, it's a hit, but the resultant damage is dependant on my stats.

hell, anything is better than the dull combat they have in Morrowind. I'm not sure why you guys are unhappy there. And no, I do not think it's a case of catering to lowest common denominator.

also, what's the negative sentiment about minigames? if they're implemented well it can be fun. I would rather a fun little game on lockpicking than seeing a binary case of "success/fail".

granted, the bit about fantasy being a knight in a horsy running around from Todd is silly.

 

[Ortchel]

Wha'd you do to get you banned?

I fought with Spazmo .. constantly :/

 

[Sol Invictus]

When you add entertainment into a game (as opposed to tedium) it is called 'catering to the lowest common denominator'. This is an argument most often heard from hardcore wargamers who enjoy playing a game about pushing chips across the board - which the act of pushing the chip itself forces the player to go through 10 or so menus and submenus in order to execute. Any streamlining of this piss poor interface is dubbed 'dumbing down' the supposed 'sophistication' of the game. It is also an argument commonly used by hardcore Everquest fanatics who insist that tedium is a medium for enjoyment and that any 'carebears', 'bluebies', 'trolls' and 'casual gamers' who can't get into the game is an 'idiot' who 'should be playing Diablo'.