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

[merry andrew]

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

If we were talking about Geneforge 3 taking out ranged weapon type variety, because the dude didn't want to program in different numerical properties for pretty much the same graphical representation, I'd probably be singing a different tune.

Oblivion, however (if you haven't noticed), is graphics intensive. Whenever something is graphics intensive, it requires more work, due to the graphical detail needed to match the gameplay detail. If Oblivion was to get rid of its pretty graphics, animations, etc... then yeah I'd want more ranged weapon variety. Anyway, that's not how it is.

 

[Vault Dweller]

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.

Gameplay-wise?

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.

And implementing maces are exactly the same as implementing swords? Same physics, same animations (try trusting with your mace), same damage tables (not that it's hard thing to do)?

I prefer focus.

Focus is good. Choice isn't bad either. Having both is even better.

Other than the Dwemer Crossbow, why the heck would anyone want to use throwing knives or javelins? They're inferior weapons.... I'm talking about having entirely useless weapon classes that would be made obsolete in any world with bow technology.

Well, first of all, they were useless because of low damage, one quick trip to the damaga table would have easily fixed that. Second, throwing knives were never obsolete, not even today, because there is more to weapons then raw damage output.

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.

Im not asking why MW doesn't have blow guns or magical lightsabers. I'm asking why weapons that existed in the previous game, made sense, and fit in, were cut out leaving ranged fighters with only one weapon type.

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.

And once again, what the fuck slings have to do with the current discussion?

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

And once again, we were talking about previously existing weapons only.

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

What opinion? That Bethesda is doing some grand implementation of bows? That's not an opinion, that's buying the propaganda at face value.

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 nice of you to decide what I'd rather see. Anyway, I highly doubt that Bethesda is planning to make any actual gameplay difference between weapons. In rare case that they do, I'm not an expert, but it seems to me that there is much more difference between a bow and a crossbow, then between several bow types.

Seems funny to see Codexers favoring quantity over quality.

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?

I'm not. I simply explained my position. What Todd mentioned was 90% graphical enhancement, and 10% was a standard feature (different bow types) in many other games.

 

[Whipporowill]

Your point on Planescape is rather void, as it's has "shoddy combat". Bethesda is aiming to enchance the poor combat in Morrowind, and also removing weapons. Will we possible see some melee weapons removed next, the ones deemed to "different" from blades - the staff and the spear perhaps?

Crossbows for fighters - slower, shorter range, armorpiercing and Longbows for longer range ("sniping") and picking off enemies running towards you. The first way was done great in Gothic II, and that's how I played.

And why on earth wouldn't the empire's capital feature crossbows if there were such in the outer provinces of the empire...

 

[Sol Invictus]

Why do you assume that melee weapons are going to dissapear?

 

[merry andrew]

What opinion? That Bethesda is doing some grand implementation of bows? That's not an opinion, that's buying the propaganda at face value.

And that's why everyone loves your speculation :wink:

 

[Whipporowill]

Rex, while Bows and X-bows may be somewhat different physicswise - they're both weapons using the same basic idea. I e shooting a projectile - why would it be impossible to implement it a as option for those focused on more close range fighting (excellent complement to slow heavily armed melee fighters). They could at least get part of the code from archery - arrows sticking in shields et c. Would that take so much work from what Bethesda has planned for archery? Maybe it's just me that's failing to see in what way Bethesda could make archery über-l337 enough to warrant it.

A spear has different physics than a sword, or a mace, or an axe - or most weapons. That's my point. Crossbow is closer to a bow than a sword to a spear.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Parabolic trajectory isn't exactly easy to implement, not to mention that they're adding ricocheting, deflection, and impact absorption physics. It'd seem very 'off' if crossbows had the same physics as bows. A lot of games with primitive or flawed implementations of physics tend to be major eyesores.

 

[Shevek]

The whole point of a rpg is the notion of character development. Weapon choice is especially key to this when said rpg is an action rpg (as all TES titles have been). Therefore, when a developer states that they will lessen player choice in how he defines his character in order to provide better action (physics, animations, whatever), they are essentially just further dumbing down the game to bring us better action at the expense of roleplaying. I just dont see how anyone could be trying to defend such design choices here. Sure, the focus on action is better but this isnt ActionCodex, is it? As has been said, the optimal solution would be proper implementation of other weapons rather than scrapping them (especially when one considers how different ranged weapons are from eachother).

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.

Fallout had a multitude of melee and ranged weapon types (grenades, burst style weapons, shotguns, spears, etc. Sure, they werent all balanced perfectly but they were there. It isnt about how this upcoming game doesnt have a specific weapon. VD is right in the sense that asking for Xbows in a TES game is not at all the same thing as asking for enchanted scimitars in a Fallout game.

Also, Ive played tons of games that had deflection and yada yada yada. If its so difficult, why do a ton of 3rd rate action titles have it?

 

[merry andrew]

A spear has different physics than a sword, or a mace, or an axe - or most weapons. That's my point. Crossbow is closer to a bow than a sword to a spear.

spear = modified quarterstaff
sword = modified mace, axe, etc.

A crossbow is similar to a bow in that they are both projectile weapons.

See the difference?

 

[Sol Invictus]

Fallout didn't have spears. That was a Fallout 2 thing, and it was retarded. Don't forget all the stupid upgrades you could put on our weapons (OMG! TURBO PLASMA RIFLE MK2), or nonsense like Pulse Rifles. They were out of place and the game world would have been better off without them.

Also, Ive played tons of games that had deflection and yada yada yada. If its so difficult, why do a ton of 3rd rate action titles have it?

Name one.

Now name one that actually shows deflected projectiles, not ones that dissapear into thin air, or don't do it properly at all (e.g. they land in a perfectly horizontal position, stationary on the ground).

 

[Whipporowill]

You don't poke people with a quarterstaff now do you? You swing it. 2 different weapon, just because they're based on a long wooden pole don't make it the same weapon.

See the difference?

 

[Sol Invictus]

You do, actually, Whip. A jab with a quarterstaff can break ribs, and that's how Shaolin monks and various European pugilists used it. Spears and quarterstaves work the same way. Spears are just sharpened quarterstaves, or quarterstaves with a double edged daggerhead or pointy metal or glass blade attached to the tip.

Spears and staves are very, very easy to master. See: Star Wars Kid. He could probably fight with that and win, given the situation.

Musashi Miyamoto wrote in his book that even though he was the best swordsman in all of Japan, he could still lose to a peasant armed with a staff in a non-lethal duel. They aren't difficult weapons to use. They're just useless at maiming.

 

[Shevek]

Fallout didn't have spears. That was a Fallout 2 thing, and it was retarded. Don't forget all the stupid upgrades you could put on our weapons (OMG! TURBO PLASMA RIFLE MK2), or nonsense like Pulse Rifles. They were out of place and the game world would have been better off without them.

Also, Ive played tons of games that had deflection and yada yada yada. If its so difficult, why do a ton of 3rd rate action titles have it?

Name one.

Now name one that actually shows deflected projectiles, not ones that dissapear into thin air, or don't do it properly at all (e.g. they land in a perfectly horizontal position, stationary on the ground).

You know, I think its funny that you think its better for bolts not to exist rather than, oh no, land perfectly horizontal.

/me fires up Tron and then plays a round of Arkanoid.

 

[merry andrew]

Sure, the focus on action is better but this isnt ActionCodex, is it? As has been said, the optimal solution would be proper implementation of other weapons rather than scrapping them (especially when one considers how different ranged weapons are from eachother).

Did you just somewhat say that the optimal solution would be for Bethesda to keep working on Oblivion for the next 3 or so years? As much as they may like to be, they're not government-funded robots. It seems that they're scrapping a variety of ranged weapon types because they'd prefer to deliver the best that they have, as opposed to everything that they have.

 

[merry andrew]

You don't poke people with a quarterstaff now do you? You swing it. 2 different weapon, just because they're based on a long wooden pole don't make it the same weapon.

See the difference?

Yeah, I do. It's just not as big as the difference between crossbows and bows, is all.

 

[Shevek]

Actually, I DONT think they should focus on making sure arrows and bolts land right and work from here to eternity. Instead, I think they should work on better differentiating the weapon types rather than rely on the cop out that most people just choose bows due to previous crappy design. This is SUPPOSED to be a rpg right?

 

[Whipporowill]

Odd that quartestaffs often feature a hefty knob, since that's pretty usueful for a weapon you swing, rather than anything else. But I won't claim superior knowledge of weaponry - just feels logical to me, having seen all them Robin Hood movies. Sure they poke each other in the stomach once in a while, it's all about the swinging.

 

[Sol Invictus]

You know, I think its funny that you think its better for bolts not to exist rather than, oh no, land perfectly horizontal.

/me fires up Tron and then plays a round of Arkanoid.

Tron 2.0 is one of the few games that actually put advanced projectile physics into effect. Even the grenades in Half Life 2 don't work properly. The bounce is wrong, and they sometimes stick to people instead of bouncing off them.

It's also rather amusing that you would call it a '3rd rate action title' considering it was a first rate action title with very high review scores.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Odd that quartestaffs often feature a hefty knob, since that's pretty usueful for a weapon you swing, rather than anything else. But I won't claim superior knowledge of weaponry - just feels logical to me, having seen all them Robin Hood movies. Sure they poke each other in the stomach once in a while, it's all about the swinging.

You've never seen glaives or japanese bladestaves (I forget the term), have you? They were pretty widely used in the French and Japanese armies, and were far more efficient than regular pointy sticks. Balanced for swinging as well as jabbing, in fact.

 

[merry andrew]

Actually, I DONT think they should focus on making sure arrows and bolts land right and work from here to eternity. Instead, I think they should work on better differentiating the weapon types rather than rely on the cop out that most people just choose bows due to previous crappy design. This is SUPPOSED to be a rpg right?

Right. They should have as many different weapons as Diablo 2 or else they'll lose their rpg status.

RPG=LOTSA WEAPONS!!!!!

 

[Sheriff05]

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.

ROFLAMO! you're so pathetically predictable
You've heard the *Less Choices = More Gameplay* argument
from how many developers now?
and you're still buying it??

Let's find this man a bridge to buy!

 

[Sol Invictus]

Oh noes! I like bows over other weapons (namely bullshit like slings, ninja stars, darts, throwing knives, javelins and so forth). OMFG. I'm so predictable!

You've heard the *Less Choices = More Gameplay* argument
from how many developers now?
and you're still buying it??

This isn't about me 'buying' the 'argument' that less choice = more gameplay. Fuck no. It's got nothing to do with the 'tyranny of choice'. It's about a trade-off between having a massive quantity of poorly implemented weapon types over a smaller quantity of quality assortment of weapons types and gameplay.

 

[Whipporowill]

A Glaive? That's not really a spear - that's more of a chopping & slashing weapon, than a piercing one. But yeah, more similar to my view of how a quarterstaff is handled (although inflicting crushing damage).

 

[Sol Invictus]

The problem with quarterstaves is that they don't cut through armor, especially leather (which softens blunt force trauma). Enter the glaive.

 

[Sheriff05]

Oh noes! I like bows over other weapons. OMFG. I'm so predictable!

Yes, and your lame dodging of the real issue is equally pathetic.