Cliff racers were the worst, weren't they? How do you always manage to say what I'm thinking? Also, I'm in this boat too- I enjoyed Morrowind more than Oblivion, and Fallout more as well.xitel said:
Oblivion: The Best Game Ever!
- Thread starter Danprezco
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Sure they would--especially if you're riding a horse and exploring the countryside. Even if the mobs only take one hit to dispatch, they still mean that you either have to endure "monsters nearby" for quite some time (providing you just run away) or stop the horse, get down, watch the mob chew through half of your horse's hit points while you try to get into position to hit the damn thing without killing your horse, then heal up your horse, climb back on, and resume your trip.geldonyetich said:
Do this 20 times between one location and another, and you develop an entirely new vocabulary for "annoying".
Issues like how stealth and monster difficulties work are a part of the entire gameplay esthetic, they're not trivial choices that can be randomly disparaged. If you don't like the big stuff, you should just say that you don't like that type of game, period, just as how I'm not especially fond of first person shooters because I detest first person perspective. (However, I've still played some excellent FPS's, because I can tell the difference between type of game and quality of game.)
The numerous trivial choices are what make the difference between "good game of type" and "annoying game of type". If you don't criticize this way, any opinion you have is totally useless because it has no objectivity to it--to you, a game is good or bad dependent upon whether it was the game you felt you wanted to play, not because of actual good or bad design choices.
Most people fall into this trap sooner or later (you can probably find an example where I've done it, myself). Yahtzee, for instance, criticized Mass Effect for having "too much dialog"--but that quantity of dialog is part of the esthetic of RPG's. It's not the same as saying that the dialog was overly verbose (as with MGS4). Most of the dialog in Mass Effect is quite good and effectively concise, it's just a HUGE part of the game.
"I didn't like it because . . ." is a substantially different statement from "it sucked because . . .". Learn to tell them apart.
Sounds like you're referring to a chore to me, so I don't see where we're disagreeing. I would categorize such considerations as what you said here when I said the flow could be improved.JMeganSnow said:
Well, like many aspiring game designers, I prefer to consider aspects of flow [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)] to be more universal to the point where an individual gameplay aesthetic needs to operate within a certain set of boundaries lest it fall out of flow and become frustrating. As you just described how Oblivion frustrates you, clearly there's work to be done here.
If by "big stuff" you mean aspects such as stealth and monster difficulties, I've seen it implemented better in other games of the same genre, so it wouldn't be appropriate to say I don't like that type of game.
If by "big stuff" you mean big, immersive worlds, I would like to know where I suggested I disliked that type of game.
Granted, evidence exists [http://dsob.wordpress.com/2008/12/29/escaping-the-rpg-trap/] that I have been feeling quite disillusioned about RPGs lately... I would say my dislike towards Oblivion stems from before that.
This is an interesting critique of yours considering you launched into this thread because I pointed out how I was disappointed about numerous trivial choices made in Oblivion's design.
I respect that you are an objectivist. However, if you're going to misinterpret what I'm saying, whose perspective are you truly being objectivist towards: mine, or who you imagine I am? While I appreciate the time you have taken in engaging with civil discourse here, throughout I've felt that my imaginary twin is who you've really been disagreeing with.
[edit] Once in a great while, you will encounter someone on a forum who is not a complete moron. Cut me that much slack, at least.
The second one.Azeban said:
I found Oblivion too hard to get in to; I got past the sewers and to the main map, and found there was too many trees and not enough...anything. An occasional wolf or bandit that were easily beaten. It also seems like you have to devote too much time to start having fun at the game, I somehow manage to get caught stealing when I'm 5 rooms and 2 floors away from the only person in the house. The map isn't mapped out for you which is a nuisance expecially for beginners, and they don't explain the symbols for the meter thing at the bottom so I ended up wandering for 45 minutes. Battles seem very repetitive, just mash button and win. The amount of armor and weapons you can carry at the beginning is, again, ridiuclous and I had to go back to the shop about every 5 minutes to sell all my stuff.
I didn't like it at all because the beginning is, simply put, boring. I much prefer Fable or other similar games to it.
Alright, I had no problem with Fallout 3, I actually loved the game, I am just saying it is no Oblivion. I don't know what it is, but I absolutely love oblivion. I agree that it is not as emersive as Fallout 3, but I think there is more to it. Although I think maybe if I went back and spent less time on the main quest in Fallout I may like it more.
I owned oblivion for the PS3 for almost 2 years and barely ever played it, once I got my PC up to snuff I played it constantly. That shift from console to PC may not have made any difference, but for some reason I really got into it afterward.
Simply put, the game sucked me in and I don't see any of the flaws other people have pointed out. But then again, that's why there are so many video games now isn't it?
I owned oblivion for the PS3 for almost 2 years and barely ever played it, once I got my PC up to snuff I played it constantly. That shift from console to PC may not have made any difference, but for some reason I really got into it afterward.
Simply put, the game sucked me in and I don't see any of the flaws other people have pointed out. But then again, that's why there are so many video games now isn't it?
Of course, the inherent problem with RPGs is that 99% of them have stories that amount to complete garbage à la western fantasy or anime clichés (this includes Mass Effect's tired sci-fi schtick), which makes any criticism of their talkiness basically appropriate.
And no, I don't think Oblivion is as good as Super Mario Bros.
I would have liked Oblivion a lot better if not for the goofy leveled creatures nonsense. What's the point of even leveling up if all the enemies will always be scaled to provide the same level of challenge? You could become a god in Morrowind. A GOD. I wanted to be able to walk down the streets of the imperial city and kill every guard I see without fearing the repercussions because there weren't any because I was A GOD.
That's why I asked if you meant Gothic 3 or not. Did you notice the question mark?JMeganSnow said:
And are you seriously going to patronize me with this "There is no Gothic 1" comment? What was the point of that? There is no Diablo 1, but in order to differentiate between Diablo and Diablo 2, people will write/say Diablo 1. I'm sure you've run into this before. This isn't your first conversation dealing with something that has a sequel, is it?
As for them apologizing for Gothic 3 vs. the Gothic 3 Expansion, I can't imagine what difference that makes in this conversation, and only reinforces my point.
Your writing presentation is most unpleasant.
If I recall, the developers stated in the user manual of the PS3 version that their goal for Oblivion is to give the player freedom. So if you're complaining about how there is no sense of urgency or why you are doing generic quest number 42 instead of going about saving the world and such, you simply aren't playing the game as it was intended. You can ignore non-story-essential quests entirely if you wanted.
I read an article (not sure where) about scalable difficulty. And this was one of the worst offenders. To the point where the common highway thug is more well-equipped than you are, stealing stuff that is FAR LESS valuable than what they already have.
I read an article (not sure where) about scalable difficulty. And this was one of the worst offenders. To the point where the common highway thug is more well-equipped than you are, stealing stuff that is FAR LESS valuable than what they already have.
Oblivion tried to suck me in. Lord knows it tried. And it succeeded, for about an hour. Then I realised that I hadn't really accomplished anything in that hour. Oblivion just isn't for me, I guess, and I definitely wouldn't call it the "best game evar".
I liked oblivion a lot and could play it for hours but it wont hold all that much nostalgic value to me because i didn't really care about the characters very much. A game that i will always remember is something more like Final Fantasy VII because there is so much character development and you feel like you know them.
Oblivion and Fallout are good to kill a few hours because they are fun but they aren't very memorable.
Oblivion and Fallout are good to kill a few hours because they are fun but they aren't very memorable.
I think you're taking a bit literally. What people are saying is that, it's not the end result (or the end of the game) that matters, but rather the journey itself that makes a great game. Nobody is saying they want to take a vacation to Cyrodiil.Iron Mal said:
Although I would have to say, even people who play The Sims (which you do everyday chores) are just as justified in their gaming habit as you are with yours. But, I'll save that argument for another time.
