Shadowstrider

LOL! Werewolf. Calling the group here "expert" gamers is hee-haw-larious. There is no such thing as "expert" gamers. People like what they like and dislike what they dislike. It is next to impossible to reason with anyone on a subject of what they like or do not like, you are the epitome of this, well you and Volourn, and most the other eThugs around here.

I like Oblivion, whereas I disliked Morrowind. Then again, I'm one of the weird people who like or dislike games based on what IS there, rather than what is not.

Oblivion has been met by praises from sources across all spectrums, including OXM, yes. We've also been told it has recieved "the highest marks for any game we've ever rated" by many of the reviewers, even some who disliked Morrowind.

Maybe.

Lionheart uses "CTB" as well. LOLLERSKATEZ.

That wasn't what they were saying over at the Mutant forum, and I defer to their knowledge (not having written one). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't know what this "mutant forum" is, but having designed a RT, TB and and a system which functions in both, I can tell you a realtime system is more difficult. Easily. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, I'm not a member and I don't frequent it, and I read it a while ago (over a year), but I think it's one where developers (from Bio?) go. Anyway, IIRC, the gist of the reasoning was that Real-Time was a matter of setting off all the little procedures (according to their own rules and timings); Turn Based required additional synchronisation administration on top (to make sure each process only did one turn's worth of action each turn). What are your experiences? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, realtime is much more difficult to design for several reasons. In realtime you're required to make constant checks to ensure that X or Y is possible, in TB this only needs to be made at the beginning of a turn, or more realistically, when an action is declared. Even something as simple as declaring a target. In TB you either can or can not see something. In realtime there is constant movement, and you come into problems of "well if the player sees something when the action is declared but loses sight mid-action, what happens?" Do you stop the action? Do you have the action continue and hit the target even if they're behind a wall? Do you have it hit the wall instead? It becomes much more difficult to balance even the trivial technical details like this.

:roll: internets. Using your logic, SPECIAL should be ditched entirely, since it doesn't work well in RT or TB combat. The evidence quite clearly supports this. What your "evidence" supports is that YOU like the combat in Fallout, and that Lionheart sucks. Newsflash, Lionheart = SPECIAL in real time. It HAPPENED TO BE SPECIAL in real time, it is not the be-all end-all of SPECIAL in real time. Of course, this requires you to actually invest some logic and reasoning into your opinion, which is impossible.

There are only 4 SPECIAL games out, and NONE of them had good combat.

That wasn't what they were saying over at the Mutant forum, and I defer to their knowledge (not having written one). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't know what this "mutant forum" is, but having designed a RT, TB and and a system which functions in both, I can tell you a realtime system is more difficult. Easily.

Way to edit your post, ninja-style. At anyrate, your opinion of BGDA 1/2 is irrelevent. The combat flowed nicely, handled intuitively, and was fun. NWN and the IE games unfold in real time, whether or not player actions are handled in turns is irrelevent.

Uh... BG:DA's combat is pretty good. NWN's combat is rather enjoyable. BG1 and 2, IWD1 and 2. I don't particularly like D&D, but these games are much more enjoyable than the TB counterparts. I'll pull a you and point out PoRII combat, which sucked big time. Thus, D&D cannot possibly work in TB. RIGHT? RIGHT?

Actually, designing turn-based combat is easier, and SPECIAL works fine in real time.

FEAR is an excellent game, despite the flaws in the story. For all its flaws, the enemy AI makes the game a blast to play. It was really interesting when I shot out a window, seeing the AI adapt and the enemy came diving through it moments later.

Hades will buy and love Fallout 3. He will herald it as the dawn of the new age. He will refer to it as "new Christ."

Have you bothered to actually READ any of the interviews? Todd Howard talks about gameplay all the time. The story of Oblivion is pretty well covered. "Roleplaying features," you mean like speechcraft skills, stealthing...? Yes, Kaftan, we know you hate Bethesda. If you're going to make fun of Bethesda, at least make fun of Bethesda while: 1) Being funny. 2) Cracking jokes with merit. P.S. You can't use the "everything is funnier when it doesn't make sense and has monkies" defense, this time.

1) You can ride horses in Oblivion, and yes they do cast shadows. 2) 360 version will have add-ons, in the form of downloadable content from Bethesda. 3) To say it is debatable that the game plays better on PC than it does on 360 is an understatement. I prefer the 360 controller with the exception of aiming, which is obviously easier on PC with the mouse than it is with the 360 stick. A mouse makes aiming spells, bow attacks and moving objects much easier, but the game pad's analog sticks and one-button-doing-many-things makes the game much more managable. 4) The sneaking in Oblivion is a lot of fun, and is very dynamic. Casting a spell can create lights which will reveal your location, as does carrying a torch. The dev team was forced to reduce the amount of shadows for several reasons, but there are options on the PC version to increase the shadowcount. I am not sure whether or not the optional shadows effect stealth. The "dumbing down" of the shadows had nothing to do with 360, instead, it had to do with minimum specs for PCs. Shadows + physics enabled objects = lag. System is irrelevent.

Sure, when I get home.

Mine looks better.

Nothing special.

[insert generic nay-saying insult HERE]

Firaxis also has a location here, in Maryland. That, paired with the fact that both studios have a pirate game in one form or another could've lead to the confusion. Bethesda is publishing the new Pirates of the Caribbean game, which is a vast improvement over the first.

I'm perfectly reasonable... so long as you give me everything I want!

I tried to read this thread and make sense of it, but I have come to the conclusion that everyone involved in the past page or two posted while under the influence of some sort of intoxicant.

1) Better combat yes. Auto-targetting and "real" 3rd person no. 2) Yes.

The persuasion mini-game is just that; a mini-game. You're not forced to use it, much like you're not forced to make casual conversation with people you see at school, work, or anywhere else. Yes, you do see whether or not the people will like, dislike, love, or hate an attempt in advance; but in the long term it doesn't matter. Why doesn't it matter? It doesn't matter because in ANY attempt to persuade someone you must use EACH persuasion tactic at least once. In that regard, the mini-game has an element of strategy, and last I checked the speechcraft skill effected the increase/decrease associated with each attempt. An NPC has a base reaction (ranging from 0-100), and this is effectively a timer in the game. Every second it decreases by 1. The key to increasing a reaction is to learn their personality, and crack jokes, boast, coerce or intimidate quickly based on this. Is it realistic? No. Is it fun? Yes, assuming you're not doing it for hours on end. For clarification, dialogue choices do matter in this game. Based on how you interact with people in dialogue, the gameplay is effected. For example, if you mock someone, they might not be inclined to ask for your help. Both the dialogue and the persuasion mini-game can effect things; for better and for worse.