Game News Todd Howard talks about his plans to dumb down Oblivion

[RGE]

So, what are you so excited about?

I'm not excited. But Bethesda certainly seems to be, so maybe they have a reason to be excited. Or not. How would I know? I'm only offering alternative answers to your question. Maybe some nice Bethesda developer will come by and explain in detail why they think it's so much better to put crossbow and throwing zots into archery. I mean, if it goes beyond their "grand implementation". If it doesn't, then I believe they have already explained their reasons. And it already seems to me as if it'll be more fun for more people, even though I could see ways of properly balancing both throwing weapons and crossbows to make them desireable choices.

I'm pretty sure they have already cut away a lot of possible melee weapons, and thieves are probably just another type of fighters, just like they usually are in games that focus on fighting. Oblivion does focus on fighting, right? And I wouldn't mind terribly if they chucked every melee weapon except swords out of the game, while making swords really cool to use. Because swords are pretty cool.

Fallout had spears and daggers, but no swords or bows. I didn't hate Black Isle for that. They could've dumped the slashing option (and thus the animation) for knives and used it for swords instead, and exchanged the spear throwing with crossbow or bow. But I think it's ok for developers to limit their games when it comes to choices of weapons, because even though we all have our favoured weapons, I don't consider my favoured weapons a high priority.

Oh, Michael Bolton just sang "Give me a kiss to build a dream on". Get him! Mwahaha. :D

 

[Sol Invictus]

Argument from hyperbole really sucks, VD. Since when did they ever say anything about getting rid of every weapon besides the sword? With bows, I can understand. Nobody give's a shit about slings and thrown spears. They don't even fit into the setting.

I personally don't care about them getting a bunch of relatively useless/unused weapon types like the sling, crossbow and javelin to work. If I were Bethesda, I wouldn't care about 'fixing' them, either. They're just not fun weapons, and having a realistic/fun/well designed bow certainly negates the lack of the other ranged weaponry. Having dwarven guns would be nice, but again, it wouldn't be a part of the setting they are trying to deliver.

See, I like to compare the world of Cyrodill with Medieval Europe. While crossbows won't be in the game (and that is a slight loss), it isn't as if javelins and slings were used by anyone during that time. They were obsolete weapons, in all regards. Longbows made sure of it.

Please understand, that I've always been a HUGE fan of the bow, and in every game where bows are available, I'm always the first person to use them. In Diablo I, my first character was a Rogue, and in DII, an Amazon. Heck, the backbone of armies in Medieval Total War and Rome consist mainly of archers.

I'm personally extremely happy to hear that they're putting a lot of effort into the implementation of bows, even if it means ditching the other ranged weaponry. I never used any of them in Morrowind, besides. Bows were always superior in every way.

 

[Sol Invictus]

But you'd be able to actually pull triggers, feel the recoil, see bullets (in slow motion), and experience all kinda similar things that are very important in an rpg.

You must be shitting me, right? Weren't you one of the people who argued that Arcanum's horrible sprites and shitty combat-related gameplay were unimportant to it's existence as an RPG? So, why the sudden change?

 

[merry andrew]

I would rather have a grand implementation than a mass & not-so-grand implementation of weaponry. Seems funny to see Codexers favoring quantity over quality.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Argument from hyperbole really sucks, VD. Since when did they ever say anything about getting rid of every weapon besides the sword?

It's called analogy, Rex. It's absolutely the same logic. Most people don't use (allegedly) weapon B, so let's get rid of it and focus on weapon A.

With bows, I can understand. Nobody give's a shit about slings and thrown spears.

Nobody? Or you? Can you be more specific here?

They don't even fit into the setting.

Really? How so? Ranged, easily concealed weapons fit very well into a setting that has several assassin organizations (DF had more then one I believe)

They're just not fun weapons

What's fun for you, maybe not fun for somebody else and vice versa.

it isn't as if javelins and slings were used by anyone during that time. They were obsolete weapons, in all regards. Longbows made sure of it.

It isn't as if we were talking about slings and javelins, we were talking about crossbows, and throwing weapons (knives, darts, stars)

 

[Sol Invictus]

It's only because it's Bethesda. If Troika was making this decision most of them would be applauding it. Troika, for example, got rid of a bunch of the skills (especially shapeshifting related ones) in Vampire: Bloodlines in favor of fewer, but well-implemented quality skills. While I agree with their decision, a lot of Vampire players dislike it.

 

[Vault Dweller]

But you'd be able to actually pull triggers, feel the recoil, see bullets (in slow motion), and experience all kinda similar things that are very important in an rpg.

You must be shitting me, right? Weren't you one of the people who argued that Arcanum's horrible sprites and shitty combat-related gameplay were unimportant to it's existence as an RPG? So, why the sudden change?

Sarcasm.

 

[Vault Dweller]

It's only because it's Bethesda. If Troika was making this decision most of them would be applauding it. Troika, for example, got rid of a bunch of the skills (especially shapeshifting related ones) in Vampire: Bloodlines in favor of fewer, but well-implemented quality skills. While I agree with their decision, a lot of Vampire players dislike it.

Actually, I criticized Bloodlines recently (Leon's interview), and even dug up an old quote stating different things and goals. Unfortunately, Saint cut 4 out of 5 paragraphs. I don't treat nobody differently.

 

[Whipporowill]

But you'd be able to actually pull triggers, feel the recoil, see bullets (in slow motion), and experience all kinda similar things that are very important in an rpg.

You must be shitting me, right? Weren't you one of the people who argued that Arcanum's horrible sprites and shitty combat-related gameplay were unimportant to it's existence as an RPG? So, why the sudden change?

Sarcasm.

Amazing he missed that one. :shock:

And stop the "it's only because it's not Troika"-yammering Rex, it's getting waaaay old. Also I'd like to hear which Vampire guys you hang out with, considering I can't say the vampire sites or Bloodlines Irc chan I'm hanging around in features any uproar on this particular issue. First there IS shapeshifting (while only a man-bat thing) in the game - but that's for another thread.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I would rather have a grand implementation than a mass & not-so-grand implementation of weaponry.

You are young and naive. Eventually you'll grow up, I hope. I asked that question before, but what "grand" implementation are we talking about here? Several bow and ammo types? That's grand? Because the rest are just graphical enhancements.

Seems funny to see Codexers favoring quantity over quality.

How about gameplay choice vs graphics?

 

[Sol Invictus]

It's called analogy, Rex. It's absolutely the same logic. Most people don't use (allegedly) weapon B, so let's get rid of it and focus on weapon A.

You're comparing Bows & Crossbows with Swords & Maces, though. Bows and Crossbows have much larger differences than Swords and Maces do. That's why I called it a hyperbole. You were exaggerating. Implementing both bows and crossbows would require a much different set of physics, damage table, animations, and most importantly balance. Games like Sacred suffer from having too much "quantity" over "quality", and the end result isn't pretty. There's too many useless weapons, imbalanced/overpowered weapons, and certain weapon types like the spear, or even entire classes like the Seraphim are completely underpowered in comparison to all the others.

I prefer focus.

Nobody? Or you? Can you be more specific here?

I mean minority. Other than the Dwemer Crossbow, why the heck would anyone want to use throwing knives or javelins? They're inferior weapons. I'm not talking about comparing longswords with rusty blades, either. I'm talking about having entirely useless weapon classes that would be made obsolete in any world with bow technology.

Think about it, Vault Dweller. Your complaints are similar to some random newbie's complaints at NMA about how Fallout doesn't have swords or bows, or heck, slingshots.

Really? How so? Ranged, easily concealed weapons fit very well into a setting that has several assassin organizations (DF had more then one I believe

Crossbows will definitely be a loss, there is no disputing that. I wasn't referring to crossbows when I talked about the weapons not fitting the setting, either. I was talking about Javelins and Slings. Slings aren't exactly 'assassin' weapons unless you're some D&D jerk. They require a lot of swinging, and emit a really loud noise.

What's fun for you, maybe not fun for somebody else and vice versa.

Let's add rifles and arbalests, then. Someone might find them fun.

 

[Sol Invictus]

You are young and naive. Eventually you'll grow up, I hope.

Condescending and unnecessary. He has a right to his opinion.

I asked that question before, but what "grand" implementation are we talking about here? Several bow and ammo types? That's grand? Because the rest are just graphical enhancements.

What about damage tables, game balance and physics programming? I bet you'd rather see a whole variety of ranged weaponry, all of which function in the same retarded manner as they did in Morrowind: they just shoot straight, and nothing more. I'm not sorry I don't share your desire to see this.

How about gameplay choice vs graphics?

Please. Now you're sounding like some pissed off Psionics fan who complains that no D&D game to date has implemented psionics. Sure, it'd be nice, but is it really necessary?

 

[Whipporowill]

Animal ken had nothing to do with shapechanging, it guess it's more of a animal diplomacy/knowledge skill afaik. Animal barbie might still be in though.

I don't expect Bethesda to offer the player a choice of any existing weapon, but why on earth can't they make room for a bow AND a crossbow. They're not THAT different to begin with, physicswise. Thrown weapons, such as knives and throwing stars might annoy a lot of the assassin-type players as well.

I figured a Rpg of teh FUTAR which featured such pretty graphics, to be able to handle all of those - guess I was wrong.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Yes, they are. Crossbows have maybe a quarter of the range, though they hit a lot harder.

As for your RPG OF TEH FUTAR comment, graphics has nothing to do with it. It's about the effort it would take to implement all the various ranged weaponry.

 

[Whipporowill]

Yes, they are. Crossbows have maybe a quarter of the range, though they hit a lot harder.

And this would take many moons to balance? Gee. Bethesda has a big team, they should be able to handle it.

As for your RPG OF TEH FUTAR comment, graphics has nothing to do with it. It's about the effort it would take to implement all the various ranged weaponry.

Really? What we're seeing is basically better graphics and less actual choice - in most games. As for how Oblivion will turn out, nobody knows, but this stuff certainly bugs me a bit.

 

[Sol Invictus]

In terms of ranged weaponry, what choice did you really have in Morrowind? There was really no point in using a throwing star or a knife if you had a bow at your disposal, because it wasn't as if bows made more noise, or anything. They just did a lot more damage.

The choices were pointlessly aesthetic, at best.

 

[merry andrew]

You are young and naive. Eventually you'll grow up, I hope. I asked that question before, but what "grand" implementation are we talking about here? Several bow and ammo types? That's grand? Because the rest are just graphical enhancements.

You're right, I won't be 21 for just under two months. I hope I keep growing, too.

We're talking about the grand implementation that Todd described. Graphical enchancements will aid with the immersion that the game provides. This seems to be something that the Elder Scrolls series has prided itself on: graphics and immersion. Everything else they do seems to be centered around those aspects of gameplay.

How about gameplay choice vs graphics?

Having several types of weapons that act almost exactly in the same manner is more of a graphical choice than a gameplay choice. 'Ranged vs Melee' is a gameplay choice, while 'Sling vs Bow' is more of a graphics/immersion choice. It seems that Bethesda has decided that for the immersion aspect, they'd rather have their ranged weaponry be quite distinct and believable rather than varied in quanitity yet not-so-varied in quality.

Why aren't they limiting all melee combat to just swords? Probably because it's probably a lot easier to implement a variety of believable and distinct melee weapons than it is for ranged weapons. The easier it is for them to implement something, the more detailed they can make it, and hopefully it will be more appreciated than the alternative.

 

[Whipporowill]

Yeah, but they shouldn't be - and they shouldn't HAVE to be. Bethesda is a technically very skillful developer (which I can't see anyone denying), how could possibly adding crossbow make it hard for them, unless they're backing themselves into a corner with the combat model they have planned - wether to advanced or twitch-consoly.

We shouldn't forget that a lot of people actually choose weapons on a roleplaying basis - I had a guy with a mace and a crossbow in a pnp campaign, just because it fitted the guy, and I liked they way I portrayed him. Never got to use the actual crossbow, but still...

 

[merry andrew]

Crossbows will definitely be a loss, there is no disputing that.

They'll probably just make bows that will have properties similar to crossbows (more damage, less range, etc.).

 

[Sol Invictus]

Bottom line: Quality > Quantity. Period.

 

[merry andrew]

Yeah, but they shouldn't be - and they shouldn't HAVE to be. Bethesda is a technically very skillful developer (which I can't see anyone denying), how could possibly adding crossbow make it hard for them, unless they're backing themselves into a corner with the combat model they have planned - wether to advanced or twitch-consoly.

That's probably the case. That and it would probably take them forever to graphically implement different ranged weapons along with their different animations that reflect the properties of the weapon.

I recall not using certain weapons in Morrowind because I didn't like the way they looked.

We shouldn't forget that a lot of people actually choose weapons on a roleplaying basis - I had a guy with a mace and a crossbow in a pnp campaign, just because it fitted the guy, and I liked they way I portrayed him. Never got to use the actual crossbow, but still...

I don't think they've forgotten that. The Elder Scrolls games are a lot different from pnp, though. I'm sure there'll be an ample amount of options in Oblivion to use in roleplaying, just not a variety of ranged weapon types.

 

[merry andrew]

Bottom line: Quality > Quantity. Period.

That's pretty much how I like it.

 

[LlamaGod]

Yeah, the quality of graphics and less stuff to make, probably.

But who cares, the weapons in Morrowind were so fucking unbalanced, they even had to make mods for that (Better Bows or something).

Everything except the giant swords sucked in comparison so that's the only reason crossbows and bows and stuff wernt used. Maybe if they made them properly they would have to 'do a cut' because they favor graphics over gameplay. Whatever.

And stop using period Exitium, makes you sound even more like Volourn.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Planescape: Torment did not feature a variety of weapons, nor did it have any armor whatsoever for the Nameless One, and some people complained about it, but was it a bad RPG?

It had shoddy combat, though.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I'm pretty sure Volourn just says "Next." a lot, not period.