Oblivion megamovie

[Musopticon?]

Think how big that game might be. :D

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I heard about that but it seems that it is poor planning and compression than actually being something wrong with the X Box 360.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

More to do with DVD's being at the end of their useful life hence the move to blu ray and HD DVD (which Toshiba couldnt get ready in time for the 360 launch).

My suspicion is that MS was so desperate to steal the jump on Sony that they stuck DVD's in when it became apparent that Toshiba wasnt going to be ready in time.

 

The very fact that this would even come up before a console was released is telling in itself. Look at it this way what takes up a significant ammount of space on a DVD takes up next to nothing on a Blu ray and the 360 should in theory have another 5 or 6 years to go. Replacing the DVD isnt an option either as the format isnt compatible.

[Judge Hades]

Yes, but will it be substance or all FMV? FMV is nice and all but I rather play the game than watch the game.

[Musopticon?]

Yes, but will it be substance or all FMV?  FMV is nice and all but I rather play the game than watch the game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, we'll have to wait and see. The story department won't be lacking, I bet.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Yes, but will it be substance or all FMV?  FMV is nice and all but I rather play the game than watch the game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

FMV draws you into the game. There was an excellent piece about how Squenix games were such emotional rollercoasters and thats mostly down to how the FMV links the games sequences together. Of course games that are nothing more than FMV are better off being movies, but in RPGs especially good FMV should not be underated.

 

For me , the intro movie is hugely important. It determines whether or not the game is likely to draw me in enough to spend 60 ish hours playing it. A good story can even compell me to finish something even if the gameplay isnt really to my tastes.

Edited October 6, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[Judge Hades]

Isn't HD DVD compatible with regular DVDs? Once TOshiba is ready they could make updated X-Boxes and have the new drives in.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Isn't HD DVD compatible with regular DVDs?  Once TOshiba is ready they could make updated X-Boxes and have the new drives in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Dosnt seem to be although that could be what was causing the delay, my info is a couple of months old.

 

Even if that were the case you would still have everyone who bought launch 360's with DVD's and develpers dealing with a split customer base of people who have 360's with DVD and those who have 360's with HD DVD. Even if you assume that the two will be compatible, you still wont ever fit a HD DVD game onto a standard DVD.

 

Last I heard they were welding the 360 shut so you couldnt fool around with it. Makes it unlikely that you could update the DVD to HD DVD if it's internal.

Edited October 6, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[Judge Hades]

Welding it shut? That is stupid. How the hell are the techs supposed to fix a 360 then? I don't know many computer techs with a blow torch.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Welding it shut?  That is stupid.  How the hell are the techs supposed to fix a 360 then?  I don't know many computer techs with a blow torch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your probably supposed to go buy another one rather than fix it.

[Azarkon]

Yes, but will it be substance or all FMV?  FMV is nice and all but I rather play the game than watch the game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

FMV draws you into the game. There was an excellent piece about how Squenix games were such emotional rollercoasters and thats mostly down to how the FMV links the games sequences together. Of course games that are nothing more than FMV are better off being movies, but in RPGs especially good FMV should not be underated.

 

For me , the intro movie is hugely important. It determines whether or not the game is likely to draw me in enough to spend 60 ish hours playing it. A good story can even compell me to finish something even if the gameplay isnt really to my tastes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Indeed. However, while FMVs can be effective in advancing a story and I really like them, I also understand that they're necessarily a step BACK for the gaming industry. That is, the future of gaming does not lie in films, because films preceded games, and the cinematic techniques in games are often far inferior to those already developed in films. Interactivity is the advantage of the gaming medium, and it is here that innovations should be made, or else we risk the prospects of eternally piggybacking on the cinematic medium. Instead of constantly giving off the image that games are simply a inferior "cheap man"'s version of films (which the film industry often has the perception of), the game industry should develop its own set of sensibilities and additions to culture.

 

And that is why I tend to support games like Oblivion more than I should: because they advance the technology that differentiates a dynamic game from a static film.

Edited October 6, 2005 by Azarkon

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Indeed.  However, while FMVs can be effective in advancing a story and I really like them, I also understand that they're necessarily a step BACK for the gaming industry.  That is, the future of gaming does not lie in films, because films preceded games, and the cinematic techniques in games are often far inferior to those already developed in games.  Interactivity is the advantage of the gaming medium, and it is here that innovations should be made, instead of constantly giving off the image that games are simply a inferior "cheap man"'s version of films (which the film industry often has the perception of).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

When it comes to RPGs you need them , while they can add to other games. As I recall WIII had some fantastic FMV which really made world come alive far more than the game could have managed using the engine alone. In an RPG something must drive the story forward, or your left with freeform which is a bit hit and miss. Something along the lines of Morrowind where you are away from the story for long periods of time (sometimes days).

 

Where games have one up on movies is this. They can do what a movie can , and then some. In a game you can alter the outcome of the movie, where as in a movie you never have that option. RPGs are so closely tied to some sort of story (outside of MMPORGs) that you need the best storytelling device possible. While you can use the engine for such things its not merely a case of quality but also of skill. Take an in engine cutscene from say KOTOR II , and it would give Keanu a challenge in wooden acting. Compare that with the vitality and sheer energy of something like the FMV from Dynasty Warriors V and FMV still has a huge edge when it comes to storytelling which dosnt diminish even with a better graphics engine.

 

Oblivion and games like it are good as a sandbox to play in , but as a story or for emotional involvement they are lacking.

Edited October 6, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0

[Judge Hades]

So you have already played Oblivion then?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

So you have already played Oblivion then? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No but neither has anyone else Unless Bethesda change tak, which it dosnt look like they have. Then the previous Elder Scrolls games will be a fair indicator of Oblivion. Lots of open spaces with nothing in them. Lots of generic NPCs with the odd interesting NPC sprinkled in. Out of those 1000+ I'd bet that less than 100 would have any sort of character, the rest are likely filler much like they were in Arena/DaggerFall/Morrowind.

[Arkan]

So you have already played Oblivion then? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This sounds odd coming from you. "

[Guest Fishboot]

Out of those 1000+ I'd bet that less than 100 would have any sort of character, the rest are likely filler much like they were in Arena/DaggerFall/Morrowind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I dunno, I appreciate the filler/atmosphere NPCs. I missed them a lot in post-Daggerfall TES (when they had to be spartan with the polygons) and especially in Vivec (the big canton town in Morrowind that's supposed to be the political/religious capital of the province, except that there are way, way too few atmospheric NPCs and NPC accessories). I really wish that there were some kind of "SpeedTown" middleware (along with really muscular level-of-detail code) so that we wouldn't have to pretend that a medium town is 10 buildings and 20 NPCs like every other RPG ever made, with the real metropolii getting up to 25/50. Daggerfall and Arena are the only RPGs I've ever played that try to reproduce cities at a simulational scale rather than an iconic one, and it really adds a new dynamic even when it's relatively flat procedural content.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I dunno, I appreciate the filler/atmosphere NPCs. I missed them a lot in post-Daggerfall TES  (when they had to be spartan with the polygons) and especially in Vivec (the big canton town in Morrowind that's supposed to be the political/religious capital of the province, except that there are way, way too few atmospheric NPCs and NPC accessories). I really wish that there were some kind of "SpeedTown" middleware (along with really muscular level-of-detail code) so that we wouldn't have to pretend that a medium town is 10 buildings and 20 NPCs like every other RPG ever made, with the real metropolii getting up to 25/50. Daggerfall and Arena are the only RPGs I've ever played that try to reproduce cities at a simulational scale rather than an iconic one, and it really adds a new dynamic even when it's relatively flat procedural content.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Divne Divinity had crowded cities too, very similiar in many ways albeit from an isometric view.

 

Personally I'd rather 100 very well done NPC's than 1000 generic ones for two reasons. The first is that they are more interesting. The second is that I'd rather not have to click through 50 NPCS in a town just to figure out that they all say the same things.

 

I still think MMPORGs deal with that type of experience much better than the elder scrolls simply because most of the people you meet around town are actual players and the filler NPCs are generally there for a functional reason. Thats not to say Oblivion cant improve on Morrowind , although I personally think Morrowind wasnt as good as DaggerFall (except for the bugs).

[Guest Fishboot]

Personally I'd rather 100 very well done NPC's than 1000 generic ones for two reasons. The first is that they are more interesting. The second is that I'd rather not have to click through 50 NPCS in a  town just to figure out that they all say the same things.

 

I hate having to be a completionist in RPGs, talking to every peon just in case he wants you to rescue his cat and so on, so I find it very liberating to play in game designed to incorporate the concept of strangers that simply pass by, of a shop you pass by but never go in, a house you rob and never pass again, etc. Like I said, it adds another dynamic, but of course it's all taste.

 

I still think MMPORGs deal with that type of experience much better than the elder scrolls simply because most of the people you meet around town are actual players and the filler NPCs are generally there for a functional reason. Thats not to say Oblivion cant improve on Morrowind , although I personally think Morrowind wasnt as good as DaggerFall (except for the bugs).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'll agree when they make an MMORPG where they remove chat channels and you can play a background townsperson rather than adventurer #10,000. I have a hard time imagining a less immersive experience than the "lol" echo chamber of an MMO.

Edited October 6, 2005 by Fishboot

[Calax]

I think it's hard to have combat like Oblivion and have it be more than a simple click fest. And I feel like a duck out of water...

 

Nice to see that your Back Paladin

[Azarkon]

Where games have one up on movies is this. They can do what a movie can , and then some.

 

But is it advancing the RPG genre to make them choose-your-own-ending films? I'd think game developers should have more ambition than that.

 

In some senses though you're right in that RPGs are in some ways hybrids of the cinematic and the interactive experience. They attempt to tell a story (visually) and create interesting characters, and insofar as this is true they are films. They then integrate that with player input, which makes them games. And it is completely true that you may enjoy the movie aspect more than the game aspect and is willing to sacrifice gameplay for better FMV's, and there's nothing wrong with that, but as a game, the product would still have failed even if it succeeded as a narrative/film.

 

And as a step forward for the gaming medium - well, I'd argue that it wouldn't be a step forward at all as much as it'd be a retreading of the same domain films did. Now here I may be over-generalizing, and there may indeed be important differences inherent in a choose-your-own-ending film from a traditional film that requires a separate artistic sensibility. But in the overall sense, I still can't imagine it to be step forward for games.

 

What would constitute a step forward for games is the level of interactivity, since as I see it the dynamic effect of the player is what separates games from films. So in a RPG, an advancement in the level of the choices you can make would be an advancement of the game aspect, as would an advancement in the depth of their effects. From this perspective, "games" like Xenosaga that are basically FMV's with mini-games in-between are just the same old polished cinematic experiences, while games like Oblivion that try to push the boundaries of the gameplay aspect of RPGs represent an advancement. I say this not to the detriment of Xenosaga as much as I say it to the detriment of those who praise games like Xenosaga & its ilk as the way RPGs should be when they're CLEARLY not even games as much as they are films with a few choices and mini-games added in.

 

I simply do not see that, even if I at times enjoy it, as the direction RPGs should be taking. It's a tried and true medium, but by that very fact it's becoming tired, and even Square Enix realizes that when they attempt to innovate on the gameplay aspects of their games. Yes, you can come up with a new story every time and your fans will gobble it up, but that's just like a long-running film series. You'll never add anything really new to the genre until you make a innovation in the underlying gameplay.

 

In the end, every story has been told, and it's how they're told that makes them fresh and new. The how and not the what should be stressed in relation to what differentiates games, as it is already in literature and already in film.

Edited October 6, 2005 by Azarkon

[Llyranor]

Gaming as a storytelling medium is still so very primitive. It has so much more potential than the stuff that's oozing out of developers' ears nowadays.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Where games have one up on movies is this. They can do what a movie can , and then some.

 

But is it advancing the RPG genre to make them choose-your-own-ending films? I'd think game developers should have more ambition than that.

 

In some senses though you're right in that RPGs are in some ways hybrids of the cinematic and the interactive experience. They attempt to tell a story (visually) and create interesting characters, and insofar as this is true they are films. They then integrate that with player input, which makes them games. And it is completely true that you may enjoy the movie aspect more than the game aspect and is willing to sacrifice gameplay for better FMV's, and there's nothing wrong with that, but as a game, the product would still have failed even if it succeeded as a narrative/film.

 

And as a step forward for the gaming medium - well, I'd argue that it wouldn't be a step forward at all as much as it'd be a retreading of the same domain films did. Now here I may be over-generalizing, and there may indeed be important differences inherent in a choose-your-own-ending film from a traditional film that requires a separate artistic sensibility. But in the overall sense, I still can't imagine it to be step forward for games.

 

What would constitute a step forward for games is the level of interactivity, since as I see it the dynamic effect of the player is what separates games from films. So in a RPG, an advancement in the level of the choices you can make would be an advancement of the game aspect, as would an advancement in the depth of their effects. From this perspective, "games" like Xenosaga that are basically FMV's with mini-games in-between are just the same old polished cinematic experiences, while games like Oblivion that try to push the boundaries of the gameplay aspect of RPGs represent an advancement. I say this not to the detriment of Xenosaga as much as I say it to the detriment of those who praise games like Xenosaga & its ilk as the way RPGs should be when they're CLEARLY not even games as much as they are films with a few choices and mini-games added in.

 

I simply do not see that, even if I at times enjoy it, as the direction RPGs should be taking. It's a tried and true medium, but by that very fact it's becoming tired, and even Square Enix realizes that when they attempt to innovate on the gameplay aspects of their games. Yes, you can come up with a new story every time and your fans will gobble it up, but that's just like a long-running film series. You'll never add anything really new to the genre until you make a innovation in the underlying gameplay.

 

In the end, every story has been told, and it's how they're told that makes them fresh and new. The how and not the what should be stressed in relation to what differentiates games, as it is already in literature and already in film.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Given the choice between spending 1 hour of real time walking to a town and spending 1 hour of real time watching a scene which draws me deeper into what is going on in the world , well I'd take the latter.

Especially if you had to revisit the town on more than one occasion and there wasnt a way to mark and recall to it. Cant think of any greater waste of time than that. When thechnology gets to a point where you can mimic the experience I might change my mind.

Oblivion etc do nothing new, they are simply offline MMPORGs , without something which can approximate a living breathing and changing world, they are rather dull and lifeless. If wandering around large expanses of empty is someones idea of fun, then they represent great value but otherwise the boredom factor kicks in long before the game is complete.

 

First we had books, then movies which "improved" upon the experience and games are the next step on the same media trail. RPGs from their PnP origins are after all interactive books of a sort. Without a story and a motivation you may as well spend the time improving yourself , rather than pressing a key for 20 minutes to improve your characters jumping.

[mkreku]

Well, I have yet seena game that requires multiple DVDs.  They are freaking huge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You haven't? I got a review copy of the expansion to Everquest 2 in the mail today, and it's on 2 DVD's. Everquest 2 itself was on 2 or 3 DVD's (can't remember). I've gotten a few PS2 games on several DVD's too. I think Champions of Norrath was one of them, but I am not sure. It's not very uncommon.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Well, I have yet seena game that requires multiple DVDs.  They are freaking huge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You haven't? I got a review copy of the expansion to Everquest 2 in the mail today, and it's on 2 DVD's. Everquest 2 itself was on 2 or 3 DVD's (can't remember). I've gotten a few PS2 games on several DVD's too. I think Champions of Norrath was one of them, but I am not sure. It's not very uncommon.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

PC games are now commonly being released on DVD and thats before you even take into account how much actual space they take up on the HD.

 

The 360 dosnt ship with a HD as standard.

 

Everquest is what I would call one of those big and empty games so it's quite suprising it takes up that much room. But further indication that a DVD isnt going to cut it over the next 5 years.

[Azarkon]

When thechnology gets to a point where you can mimic the experience I might change my mind.

Oblivion etc do nothing new, they are simply offline MMPORGs , without something which can approximate a living breathing and changing world, they are rather dull and lifeless. If wandering around large expanses of empty is someones idea of fun, then they represent great value but otherwise the boredom factor kicks in long before the game is complete.

 

These two ideas contradict each other. On one hand, you imply that technological advancements might change your mind. But what was Oblivion's innovation in the first place if not in the procedural technology of dynamic worlds? It maybe true that Oblivion's current level of technology cannot simulate the living narrative that you would like to see, but at least they're making progress towards that, whereas most FMV-based narratives are simply sitting on their asses trying to make prettier graphics. The stories, I daresay, are not even getting better, especially since every story is necessarily subsidiary to their cinematic equivalent. Ultimately, I cannot see the slow, at times unconscious adaptation of decades of pre-existing cinematic experience into the digital medium as something worth getting excited over.

 

If anything, FMV-based narratives offer nothing new, while MMORPGs and simulated virtual worlds advance the gaming genre with each iteration, even though as of late we've fallen into a trap with companies trying to imitate WOW' success.

 

First we had books, then movies which "improved" upon the experience and games are the next step on the same media trail. RPGs from their PnP origins are after all interactive books of a sort. Without a story and a motivation you may as well spend the time improving yourself , rather than pressing a key for 20 minutes to improve your characters jumping.

 

What made PnP great was the amount of choices you had; the level of interactivity you could have with the environment and the narrative. Linear, FMV-based games suppress that in favor of a more cinematic level of enjoyment. Therefore, they cannot be said to be great *games*.

Edited October 7, 2005 by Azarkon

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

These two ideas contradict each other.  On one hand, you imply that technological advancements might change your mind.  But what was Oblivion's innovation in the first place if not in the procedural technology of dynamic worlds? It maybe true that Oblivion's current level of technology cannot simulate the living narrative that you would like to see, but at least they're making progress towards that, whereas most FMV-based narratives are simply sitting on their asses trying to make prettier graphics.  The stories, I daresay, are not even getting better, especially since every story is necessarily subsidiary to their cinematic equivalent.  Ultimately, I cannot see the slow, at times unconscious adaptation of decades of pre-existing cinematic experience into the digital medium as something worth getting excited over.

 

If anything, FMV-based narratives offer nothing new, while MMORPGs and simulated virtual worlds advance the gaming genre with each iteration, even though as of late we've fallen into a trap with companies trying to imitate WOW' success.

 

What made PnP great was the amount of choices you had; the level of interactivity you could have with the environment and the narrative.  Linear, FMV-based games suppress that in favor of a more cinematic level of enjoyment.  Therefore, they cannot be said to be great *games*.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oblivion is still pointless , the technology I was thinking of would be almost total immersion. As it is , I can think of few things more banal than standing in a corner clicking for no reason other than to increase a skill. In an MMPORG its a means to an end, but in a single player game there is no end that makes it worth doing. Your much better off spending the time improving your own abilities. Which brings me onto the other issue I have with games like Oblivion. If past games are anything to go by they wont challenge me and the gameplay will not be compelling enough to make up for a lack of a indepth story with interesting characters.

 

FMV brings the player emotional involvement in the game. That can lead to overlooking things like a poor control system since you are driven by other things.

 

FMV narratives dont have to be linear, many are not and incorporate multiple endings. What you dont get is the level of obvious that you get in the sort of things that Bioware make , its more subtle and hidden. You may not even realise you are altering anything at the time.

I'd take the gameplay of Star Ocean or Tales of Symphonia over the one dimensional mechanics of Morrowind any day. Morrowind dosnt even qualify as a game in my book, its more a simulation of you in a fantasy world doing your own thing. Ovlivion looks like its slimmed down the gameplay elements even further so I fail to see why that would make anyone extol it as a great game. If anything Oblivion is a step back not forward which dosnt go along with your theory.

 

On the other hand the telling of a good story is a timeless thing , that wont change regardless of how technology does. Rather the technology will ehance the method of telling.