Oblivion megamovie

[Azarkon]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's fine and all, and I do realize that Oblivion has issues while FMV-narratives can be very enjoyable, but it doesn't answer my point, which is that FMV-narratives are a static medium that depends heavily on transferring techniques from film, while interactivity is the true advantage of a game and what differentiates this genre from all that preceded it. Thus, advancements in *this* genre necessarily depends on advancements in interactivity more than anything else, since without being interactive games would essentially be watered down animations.

 

With regards to Oblivion, then, how is Oblivion a step backwards? Procedural content is at the heart of producing dynamic content, and Oblivion is all over that. Improved AI via the Radiant AI engine, suffice to say, is the building blocks of truly dynamic NPCs, even if we're not there yet. And of course, general improvements of how PCs can interact with NPCs should not be overlooked, especially since we're talking about a range of interaction far greater than any existing RPG other than PnP.

 

Even if Oblivion is in fact a virtual fantasy world simulation, how can that be an indication of anything but the fact that Oblivion is more of a *game*? A game is *played*, it is not *told*. Products like Star Ocean and its ilk are more like cinematic narratives than games.

 

Therefore, I stand by my point that Oblivion is a step towards the future of gaming, while FMV-narratives are deeply rooted and will remain in the realm of cinematography. That's not to say that you can't be a fan of the cinematic experience over the gaming experience, or that we should stop producing FMV-narratives. But it is to say that with respect to games, innovation should be noticed where it appears, and innovation is most definitely something that Oblivion is striving towards - even if you don't like the game design itself.

Edited October 7, 2005 by Azarkon

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

That's fine and all, and I do realize that Oblivion has issues while FMV-narratives can be very enjoyable, but it doesn't answer my point, which is that FMV-narratives are a static medium that depends heavily on transferring techniques from film, while interactivity is the true advantage of a game and what differentiates this genre from all that preceded it.  Thus, advancements in *this* genre necessarily depends on advancements in interactivity more than anything else, since without being interactive games would essentially be watered down animations.

 

With regards to Oblivion, then, how is Oblivion a step backwards? Procedural content is at the heart of producing dynamic content, and Oblivion is all over that.  Improved AI via the Radiant AI engine, suffice to say, is the building blocks of truly dynamic NPCs, even if we're not there yet.  And of course, general improvements of how PCs can interact with NPCs should not be overlooked, especially since we're talking about a range of interaction far greater than any existing RPG other than PnP.

 

Even if Oblivion is in fact a virtual fantasy world simulation, how can that be an indication of anything but the fact that Oblivion is more of a *game*? A game is *played*, it is not *told*.  Products like Star Ocean and its ilk are more like cinematic narratives than games.

 

Therefore, I stand by my point that Oblivion is a step towards the future of gaming, while FMV-narratives are deeply rooted and will remain in the realm of cinematography.  That's not to say that you can't be a fan of the cinematic experience over the gaming experience, or that we should stop producing FMV-narratives.  But it is to say that with respect to games, innovation should be noticed where it appears, and innovation is most definitely something that Oblivion is striving towards - even if you don't like the game design itself.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But when you only get paper thin and uninteresting characters the price is too high. Morrowinds characters were awful, there was nothing to involve you in the game beyond wandering around in the sandbox. The gameplay was equally poor so while a game could get by without a story , it would require some pretty steller gameplay to make up for it.

 

Without a purpose any advancement is a waste of time. Roleplaying has always been about telling a story, the very fact that you only have a single character will always make games like Morrowind inferior. When your traversing large expanses of empty nothing it's what makes MMPORGs bearable.

 

What you dont seem to understand is that FMV does not preclude gaming, rather it enhances it. It draws you deeper into the world and increases your understanding of it.

Even if you strip away the FMV in Star Ocean you still have a better "game" than Morrowind on it's mechanics alone. What you lose is the purpose and the plot but the gameplay elements remain superior. So without a purpose or plot and with weak gameplay to boot you dont have much of anything when it comes to Morrowind once the novelty wears off.

You can claim you make your own entertainment, but thats a time you could better spend improving your actual life.

[Azarkon]

So because Morrowind was crappy (and there are legions of people who would argue with you on that point alone), none of its gameplay innovations matter? Because something like Xenogears might have had a good cinematic narrative, its lack of gameplay elements is not a weakness in terms of interactivity? If you ask me to understand that FMVs do not preclude gaming, why is it then that you can't accept the fact that a non-narrative approach to story does not preclude RPGs? Aren't you relying on a too-narrow definition in this case of what a RPG *should* be?

 

I understand that you would like to defend these games with good stories and characters. Hell, we have a entire multi-billion dollar industry devoted to doing just that on the big screen. But the enjoyment you garner from these games is, ultimately, a cinematic enjoyment. You enjoy them for the narrative, for the characters, and for the flow of the story. You do not enjoy them for why we'd enjoy a game over other mediums: interactivity. As such, though FMVs certainly do not preclude gameplay, they are, as you say, merely an enhancement of it - they do not comprise the actual gameplay, and thus *cannot* advance gaming as a genre.

 

Now whether Star Ocean indeed *has* better gameplay elements is another debate altogether. Personally, the JRPGs I've played have their level of interactivity straight out of the first FF games and, indeed, straight from the original CRPGs. Not much real development in this area has gone on beyond that, and many people indeed argue that the latest FF games are a step BACK from games like FF6 and FF4 in terms of actual interactive gameplay. This is why I say that they're not innovative, why they're basically rehashes with better graphics and better cinematic techniques. True, they're better as narratives, as films, but not as games. And therein is my point.

Edited October 7, 2005 by Azarkon

[Epiphany]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If that's how you play Morrowind or would play Oblivion, it's nobodies fault but your own that the game is "pointless" or boring...

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

So because Morrowind was crappy (and there are legions of people who would argue with you on that point alone), none of its gameplay innovations matter? Because something like Xenogears might have had a good cinematic narrative, its lack of gameplay elements is not a weakness in terms of interactivity? If you ask me to understand that FMVs do not preclude gaming, why is it then that you can't accept the fact that a non-narrative approach to story does not preclude RPGs? Aren't you relying on a too-narrow definition in this case of what a RPG *should* be?

 

I understand that you would like to defend these games with good stories and characters.  Hell, we have a entire multi-billion dollar industry devoted to doing just that on the big screen.  But the enjoyment you garner from these games is, ultimately, a cinematic enjoyment.  You enjoy them for the narrative, for the characters, and for the flow of the story.  You do not enjoy them for why we'd enjoy a game over other mediums: interactivity.  As such, though FMVs certainly do not preclude gameplay, they are, as you say, merely an enhancement of it - they do not comprise the actual gameplay, and thus *cannot* advance gaming as a genre.

 

Now whether Star Ocean indeed *has* better gameplay elements is another debate altogether.  Personally, the JRPGs I've played have their level of interactivity straight out of the first FF games and, indeed, straight from the original CRPGs.  Not much real development in this area has gone on beyond that, and many people indeed argue that the latest FF games are a step BACK from games like FF6 and FF4 in terms of actual interactive gameplay.  This is why I say that they're not innovative, why they're basically rehashes with better graphics and better cinematic techniques.  True, they're better as narratives, as films, but not as games.  And therein is my point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's really quite simple, in both the case of an MMPORG and a PnP RPG the non narrative approach relies on the party dynamic, or the presence of other thinking people who you hange out with to create you own stories. Without those other people the whole thing falls flat. Thats why narrative is so important it replaces what is is lost by reducing a group experience to a solo one. At some point the technology may exist to counter that shortcoming, but I already used words to that effect in my previous posts.

 

Your wrong although not totally. A good game can stand on it's own gaming merits and be enhanced by the addition of cinematics, but likewise weak gaming mechanics can be overlooked if you have a strong story compelling you. Obviously I do enjoy them for interactivity or I would be watching movies rather than playing games.

But that interactivity doese not have to come at the price of a narrative. Rather it can enhance it. With a game like Morrowind once you realise how banal the whole thing is, much like an MPORG then there is nothing else to keep you playing. And since I've never come across an RPG which offers challenge on a gameplay mechanic level , the story becomes vitaly important to keep interest.

 

Your compltely wrong since Star Ocean shares nothing with any of the FF series (although XII might come somewhat close). How Star Ocean plays is quite different from how FF plays even FF from game to game will have very different mechanics.

 

And equally Oblivion is a rehash of Morrowind , as Morrowind was of Daggerfall and it was of Arena. Actually I and others feel that Morrowind was a step back from daggerfall since it lacked many of the gameplay elements that Daggerfall had. Where as the only real change in the interactivity of the FF series has been to abondon the overland map in favour of a more direct approach. What cinematics have done for the FF series is to make them more involving ,actually they have won awards for it. If people have such short attention spans that they cant sit still through a cinematic , then thats something they probably need help with.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

If that's how you play Morrowind or would play Oblivion, it's nobodies fault but your own that the game is "pointless" or boring...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Except that the whole game is based around repetative tasks which wont raise sufficiently through normal gameplay.

 

But feel free to share your method of improving your jumping skill.

[Epiphany]

Except that the whole game is based around repetative tasks which wont raise sufficiently through normal gameplay.

 

But feel free to share your method of improving your jumping skill.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Greater fall heights improve the skill quicker than "standing in a corner".

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Greater fall heights improve the skill quicker than "standing in a corner".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But you cant tape the key down to do that..

 

That really goes to show just how flawed things are since they made the tasks so boring I dont want to be involved with them. Even combat is a snooze fest. Outside of exploring, a novelty which soon wears off the games have nothing much to recomend them.

[Epiphany]

But you cant tape the key down to do that..

 

That really goes to show just how flawed things are since they made the tasks so boring I dont want to be involved with them. Even combat is a snooze fest. Outside of exploring, a novelty which soon wears off the games have nothing much to recomend them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Who needs an acrobatics skill of 100? If you play normally, and just take greater risks with fall heights, say jumping off a ledge instead of walking off, your acrobatics will naturally rise at a general pace, and you will notice you take less and less damage from "natural fall heights".

 

You're power gaming, and you're bitching about the experience being ruined. Sorry, but it's your own damn fault, and not Bethesdas. They gave you an open-ended game, where you could do almost anything, and your standing around pressing the jump button over and over so you can power rush your skill in acrobatics up ASAP. It's an ignorant complaint.

 

Combat is entirely different in Oblivion, much more detail, a lot more "hands on" regarding what you do. You have to manually block, there are various levels of attacks, ranging from light to powerful, arching to quick hits, all of which have benefits and drawbacks. Blocking is now done manually and has greater benefits of stunning the enemy (or you if you get blocked), leaving you open for a free hit.

 

You're simply spouting off at the mouth about a game that has fixed nearly every major flaw brought up by its fan base, and discrediting the entire game based off of your experience with the previous version.

 

edit:

 

How much have you bothered to read on Oblivion?

Edited October 7, 2005 by Epiphany

[Azarkon]

It's really quite simple, in both the case of an MMPORG and a PnP RPG the non narrative approach relies on the party dynamic, or the presence of other thinking people who you hange out with to create you own stories. Without those other people the whole thing falls flat. Thats why narrative is so important it replaces what is is lost by reducing a group experience to a solo one. At some point the technology may exist to counter that shortcoming, but I already used words to that effect in my previous posts.

 

Your wrong although not totally. A good game can stand on it's own gaming merits and be enhanced by the addition of cinematics, but likewise weak gaming mechanics can be overlooked if you have a strong story compelling you. Obviously I do enjoy them for interactivity or I would be watching movies rather than playing games.

But that interactivity doese not have to come at the price of a narrative. Rather it can enhance it. With a game like Morrowind once you realise how banal the whole thing is, much like an MPORG then there is nothing else to keep you playing. And since I've never come across an RPG which offers challenge on a gameplay mechanic level , the story becomes vitaly important to keep interest.

 

Having played a MMORPG for six years, I call BS on that. If there's nothing to keep you playing in a MMORPG what are the ~10+ million people worldwide doing playing them? I can only go through a narrative story once and retain full enjoyment, but I can play a MMORPG for years on ends and not hit the peak of enjoyment until 2-3 years in. Therein is why interactivity is far more important to the gaming genre: it's what sets games apart from the kind of once-through narratives that are fundamental to literature/films.

 

Now you might argue, logically, that it's the other people that keeps you playing, and you'd be absolutely right. But the presence of other people *is* an element of interactivity, and as such I'm justified to say that it's interactivity that keeps people playing MMORPGs and, for that matter, single-player games in other genres such as war games, RTS's, action games, and the like. I played Doom, personally, for 1-2 years - just blasting away at monsters and downloading new maps to blasting away at more monsters. It had nothing to do with the story or the characters. Herein is a game's special advantage.

 

Your compltely wrong since Star Ocean shares nothing with any of the FF series (although XII might come somewhat close). How Star Ocean plays is quite different from how FF plays even FF from game to game will have very different mechanics.

 

Well, I didn't say that Star Ocean shared the FF game mechanics, I said JRPGs that *I* played. Since I didn't play Star Ocean, I can't comment on it, which is why I made a point to leave its discussion for another time.

 

And equally Oblivion is a rehash of Morrowind , as Morrowind was of Daggerfall and it was of Arena. Actually I and others feel that Morrowind was a step back from daggerfall since it lacked many of the gameplay elements that Daggerfall had. Where as the only real change in the interactivity of the FF series has been to abondon the overland map in favour of a more direct approach. What cinematics have done for the FF series is to make them more involving ,actually they have won awards for it. If people have such short attention spans that they cant sit still through a cinematic , then thats something they probably need help with.

 

If anything, it's far easier to attract people's attention through FMV's than through gameplay, which is actually why it's used so often. Most people can sit in front of TVs all day long, but only a select group would play games for hours on ends.

 

Regardless, interactivity is the sole principle difference between games and films, which is why I consider it so necessary to innovation. One of the big arguments against FF nowadays is that the gameplay is subsidiary to the telling of the story, whereas once the FFs were good squad combat games in addition to vehicles for storytelling. Herein is where I see a dichotomy between the two characteristics of the genre: the old, bi-sensual (sight & hearing) cinematic attraction and the addition of new, interactive gameplay. Though advancing the former is certainly a enhancement to the overall product, it is not an advancement for what makes the product a *game*. Only the latter can do that. And since JRPGs (and Bioware, to a lesser degree nowadays) tend to prefer adding more and more to the former, I retain a certain degree of respect for companies like Bethesda that continues to innovate in the latter (and as said, saying that Oblivion is simply a rehash of Daggerfall/Morrowind is biased speculation, since by all accounts the feature list presents a plethora of progressive innovations).

[mkreku]

You're simply spouting off at the mouth about a game that has fixed nearly every major flaw brought up by its fan base, and discrediting the entire game based off of your experience with the previous version.

Haha, the guy who's vividly talking about features in a game that's not been released yet and noone has played is actually accusing someone who's using at least something real (experience with Morrowind) as grounds for his statements, for "spouting off at the mouth". Self insight..

 

Epiphany, as usual you have swallowed the entire hype machine surrounding whatever it is you're interested in at the moment and talk about this hype as if it's facts. Newsflash: it's not! It's called HYPING, and you really need to learn the meaning of that word soon, because you're making a fool of yourself everytime you post on these boards.

[Judge Hades]

If that's how you play Morrowind or would play Oblivion, it's nobodies fault but your own that the game is "pointless" or boring...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Except that the whole game is based around repetative tasks which wont raise sufficiently through normal gameplay.

 

But feel free to share your method of improving your jumping skill.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I improved my Jumping skill by jumping and climbling over mountains in the game. I didn't spam the jump button. If I didn't need to jump, run, swing a sword, or cast a spell, and whatnot I didn't.

[Judge Hades]

You're simply spouting off at the mouth about a game that has fixed nearly every major flaw brought up by its fan base, and discrediting the entire game based off of your experience with the previous version.

Haha, the guy who's vividly talking about features in a game that's not been released yet and noone has played is actually accusing someone who's using at least something real (experience with Morrowind) as grounds for his statements, for "spouting off at the mouth". Self insight..

 

Epiphany, as usual you have swallowed the entire hype machine surrounding whatever it is you're interested in at the moment and talk about this hype as if it's facts. Newsflash: it's not! It's called HYPING, and you really need to learn the meaning of that word soon, because you're making a fool of yourself everytime you post on these boards.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You both are being silly. Yes they said they fixed the issues people had in the first game but at the same time developers and publishers have been known to overhype their games. It is a good idea to take note what they said and claim, but also accept what they say with a grain of salt until we are able to play the game ourselves.

[LoneWolf16]

You're simply spouting off at the mouth about a game that has fixed nearly every major flaw brought up by its fan base, and discrediting the entire game based off of your experience with the previous version.

Haha, the guy who's vividly talking about features in a game that's not been released yet and noone has played is actually accusing someone who's using at least something real (experience with Morrowind) as grounds for his statements, for "spouting off at the mouth". Self insight..

 

Epiphany, as usual you have swallowed the entire hype machine surrounding whatever it is you're interested in at the moment and talk about this hype as if it's facts. Newsflash: it's not! It's called HYPING, and you really need to learn the meaning of that word soon, because you're making a fool of yourself everytime you post on these boards.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You both are being silly. Yes they said they fixed the issues people had in the first game but at the same time developers and publishers have been known to overhype their games. It is a good idea to take note what they said and claim, but also accept what they say with a grain of salt until we are able to play the game ourselves.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Words of wisdom from Hades

[LoneWolf16]

Words of wisdom from Hades 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

YAY ME! (w00t)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah yeah

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Having played a MMORPG for six years, I call BS on that.  If there's nothing to keep you playing in a MMORPG what are the ~10+ million people worldwide doing playing them? I can only go through a narrative story once and retain full enjoyment, but I can play a MMORPG for years on ends and not hit the peak of enjoyment until 2-3 years in.  Therein is why interactivity is far more important to the gaming genre: it's what sets games apart from the kind of once-through narratives that are fundamental to literature/films.

 

Now you might argue, logically, that it's the other people that keeps you playing, and you'd be absolutely right.  But the presence of other people *is* an element of interactivity, and as such I'm justified to say that it's interactivity that keeps people playing MMORPGs and, for that matter, single-player games in other genres such as war games, RTS's, action games, and the like.  I played Doom, personally, for 1-2 years - just blasting away at monsters and downloading new maps to blasting away at more monsters.  It had nothing to do with the story or the characters.  Herein is a game's special advantage.

 

Well, I didn't say that Star Ocean shared the FF game mechanics, I said JRPGs that *I* played.  Since I didn't play Star Ocean, I can't comment on it, which is why I made a point to leave its discussion for another time.

 

If anything, it's far easier to attract people's attention through FMV's than through gameplay, which is actually why it's used so often.  Most people can sit in front of TVs all day long, but only a select group would play games for hours on ends. 

 

Regardless, interactivity is the sole principle difference between games and films, which is why I consider it so necessary to innovation.  One of the big arguments against FF nowadays is that the gameplay is subsidiary to the telling of the story, whereas once the FFs were good squad combat games in addition to vehicles for storytelling.  Herein is where I see a dichotomy between the two characteristics of the genre: the old, bi-sensual (sight & hearing) cinematic attraction and the addition of new, interactive gameplay.  Though advancing the former is certainly a enhancement to the overall product, it is not an advancement for what makes the product a *game*.  Only the latter can do that.  And since JRPGs (and Bioware, to a lesser degree nowadays) tend to prefer adding more and more to the former, I retain a certain degree of respect for companies like Bethesda that continues to innovate in the latter (and as said, saying that Oblivion is simply a rehash of Daggerfall/Morrowind is biased speculation, since by all accounts the feature list presents a plethora of progressive innovations).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I played MMPORGS for 12 years off an on. I think of them like the Matrix and this can be seen when people finally quite. You can tell people they are nothing but level grinds, which is indeed true , but it wont matter until they hit that realisation point themselves. However people can still realise this and carry on playing because they have friends there. In many ways the friends mirror what the story does in a story based game. They give you an incentive to play beyond the flawed mechanics. Now the Elder Scrolls dont have that. You can lose yourself in the game for a couple of days, but once you realise what your doing has no point then there is nothing to keep you there. There are no other people in Morrowind which makes your argument flawed when you apply it to such games. I have no problem with it when it comes to MMPORGs.

 

With all due respect that dosnt give you a wide perspective on the issue since there are games already that tackle some of the issues you have. IE they are non linear, they have strong mechanics independent of the story etc. If Oblivion actually does something worthwhile, then I will reasses the situation. But not based on hype alone.

 

The reson FMV is used is it is the best method currently of telling a dynamic story scene. People remember the characters in these games, I couldnt tell you a single NPC in Morrowind without looking it up, thats how bland they were.

 

Anyone arguing that is missing the point. You have both the gameplay and the story. If Sqenix felt the gameplay wasnt important, then they wouldnt change it every game. The latest FF is like no FF that has come before when it comes to gameplay. Likewise other JRPGs have totally different gameplay even if they keep the same strong narrative structure.

If we shift across to Bioware/Obsidian, then it's the characters which attract the most attention. And those characters are there to ease the transistion from a multiplayer game to a single player game. It beats me why Bethesda dont just take the Elder Scrolls series online. In Morrowind, you wander off alone spend days (sometimes real ones) all on your lonesome traversing an empty world. The best anology of a game like Morrowind is being the only player in an MMPORG.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I improved my Jumping skill by jumping and climbling over mountains in the game.  I didn't spam the jump button.  If I didn't need to jump, run, swing a sword, or cast a spell, and whatnot I didn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Unless of course you come to a gap you cant jump. Then you dont have much choice in the matter unless you fancy a another 2 hour walk to get back.

 

Leveling can have the same issues, but I've come across anything thats needed leveling on that sort of scale.

[Guest Fishboot]

In Morrowind, you wander off alone spend days (sometimes real ones) all on your lonesome traversing an empty world. The best anology of a game like Morrowind is being the only player in an MMPORG.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It disturbs me that you can be confidently dismissive of a genre of which you have no grasp.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

It disturbs me that you can be confidently dismissive of a genre of which you have no grasp.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't worry you will come to the same realisation eventually. It just takes some people longer than others to see how pointless the game is.

[Guest Fishboot]

It disturbs me that you can be confidently dismissive of a genre of which you have no grasp.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't worry you will come to the same realisation eventually. It just takes some people longer than others to see how pointless the game is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It disturbs me that you can be confidently dismissive of a genre of which you have no grasp.

 

Edit - I'm defending TES here, not MMORPGs, if you're confused. I could probably summon an impassioned multiparagraph fanboy defense the way I'm sure you could for someone saying Final Fantasy suxxors, but it's pretty much guaranteed to be wasted effort.

Edited October 8, 2005 by Fishboot

[Darque]

In Morrowind, you wander off alone spend days (sometimes real ones) all on your lonesome traversing an empty world. The best anology of a game like Morrowind is being the only player in an MMPORG.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It disturbs me that you can be confidently dismissive of a genre of which you have no grasp.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I tend to agree with you.

 

SP doesn't seem to realize there are different gamer mentalities.

 

Explorer, Social, Killer... and one more that I can't think of this early in the morning...

 

Morrowind is for the Explorer style gamer.

Edited October 8, 2005 by Darque

[mkreku]

Morrowind is for the Explorer style gamer.

That's not quite true either. I am more of an explorer type of player, I like to immerse myself in strange, new worlds and be free enough to walk around at my own leisure. Morrowind let me do all those things, but after exploring the umpteenth generic dungeon without a real purpose, it became painfully clear that the game had not gotten enough love from its developers. Instead of making a few special places, Morrowind is full of pointless little places that are not worth exploring. In fact, the entire gigantic island that Morrowind plays out on is made that way, and exploring is only fun if you have the prospect of finding something interesting or unique every once in a while.

 

The Gothic games are a perfect example of this delicate balance. If there are too many goodies hidden in the game, you become spoiled and don't appreciate what you find and exploring becomes uninteresting. If you have too few surprises, it's not worth going through hundreds of generic dungeons to find that one special cave. Gothic has a decent amount of hidden stuff for the explorer types among us, but it never feels cheap or not worth it.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I tend to agree with you.

 

SP doesn't seem to realize there are different gamer mentalities.

 

Explorer, Social, Killer... and one more that I can't think of this early in the morning...

 

Morrowind is for the Explorer style gamer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No doubt that Morrowind does exlploration well. I've said that from the start. As well as having an entertaining few days exploring. However that in itself is fundamentaly flawed since by exploring I broke the difficulty curve of the plot beyond repair and thus became very bored when returning to it since there was nothing to hold me there beyond the mechanics.

 

While at the time of Arena and possibly Daggerfall the games were innovative, MMPORGs do what they do and so much more, they are pretty much obsolete which is why it's hard to buy anyone seeing them as the future.

 

Explore enough and one Deadric ruin is the same as any other Deadric ruin and likewise anything else. Once you realise that, then any impetus for exploration is gone.

 

Exploration gamers are better served by MMPORGs anyway since they are ever changing. I'm a bit of an exploration gamer myself but I still think Morrowind is empty and the mechanics are dull. Since that really hasnt changed much since Arena I doubt Oblivion will either.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

One other factor in exploration is that it is a one off. Once you have explored, unless content is randomised then your always going to know what is at that location. Which is another reason why solid game mechanics are important, be it in a story based or non story based game.

[Guest Fishboot]

Explorer, Social, Killer... and one more that I can't think of this early in the morning...

 

Morrowind is for the Explorer style gamer.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What does Killer refer to?

 

I would say that TES also have a solid representation for the "Simulationist" (in the role-playing sense), in somewhat the same way as the GTA games, although less robust in some areas and more in others, and "Fantasist" (sort of a second-order Explorationist, interested in a fantasy history, culture, politics and other intangibles).

 

That's in addition to the more infantile attractions like progression (stat and loot), virtual achievement, virtual importance, etc. that are probably the bulk of what makes the games profitable (...like most of the successful games we historically call RPGs).