Oblivion: PC Gamer Praises in Preview

[Plano Skywalker]

I don't find aging or retirement from an adventuring life to be that much of a problem, really. It's just another way to look at a time limit gameplay mechanic. You could replace Fallout's time limit to destroy the Master's plans and the Mutant Base with aging for some story reasons, and this would still not matter to the gameplay nor would it really bring any negative impact.

 

Aging can also be a good way to increase replayability and from preventing players from doing everything possible in one single playtrough. I actually would have liked to see aging in Morrowind, for example.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

indeed...I think that aging and forced retirement (mind you, Pirates! has you retiring at about age 35 IIRC, which is pretty realistic) is THE solution to the open-ended problem.

 

now, if you like Morrowind just the way it is then I'm not talking to you. but if you think open-ended games need some sort of mechanism to complete the experience (WOW, I retired as a governor this time!), then there is nothing better IMO than aging and forced retirement. It is the best way to introduce opportunity costs in an otherwise unlimited playground.

 

if you don't like unlimited playgrounds without some sort of opportunity cost and balancing mechanism but refuse to play a game with aging, then linear RPGs are for you, not open-ended ones.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

No, I didn't enjoy Morrowind just the way it was, although I'm not going into lenghts to discuss that. Suffice to say, I think that aging would have made Morrowind more replayable (and in a way more enjoyable) because it would instead encourage them to actually replay it and try different character builds and try achieving other things, instead of being able to be and do nearly everything in one playtrough.

 

This would be particularly noticeable in character builds. If you notice, any character uniqueness the PCs might have had in the beginning is lost in the later stages as nothing prevents players from working on all skills. By the end of the game, most characters will feel the same. A time limit in this case would promote a diversity of character builds and (re)playing experience.

[Jack the Ripper]

The solution is quite simple:  AGING...and forced retirement.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Er, no. I won't buy a game that forces me to rush through it before my character turns into a senile, doddering geriatric. Didn't buy Fable for that very reason. If this is the direction RPG's go, then I'll obviously have more time for strategy games because I utterly hate the entire concept of Aging and Forced Retirement in my recreation. I have enough of that in real life.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I also agree. And then we have games like Pirates where one day = one second. Sail for seventeen years, and that's what? Pushing two hours? And all those horribly repetetive swordfights and dances, ugh. I think that game is terribly overrated.

 

You should note, however, that in Fable getting old doesn't effect anything except the cosmetic appearance of your character. And the guy looks pretty cool when he gets old, kinda like how people Sean Connery to look back when he was a young man. And if you donate money to the good God, you can sometimes reverse aging's effects.

[alanschu]

I also agree. And then we have games like Pirates where one day = one second. Sail for seventeen years, and that's what? Pushing two hours? And all those horribly repetetive swordfights and dances, ugh. I think that game is terribly overrated.

 

Isn't Morrowind repetitive as well, as you just wander around attacking stuff?

 

But hey, you didn't need to do the sword fights, nor the dancing. Just like you don't need to take part in the "engaging" conversation in Morrowind.

[Jack the Ripper]

I also agree. And then we have games like Pirates where one day = one second. Sail for seventeen years, and that's what? Pushing two hours? And all those horribly repetetive swordfights and dances, ugh. I think that game is terribly overrated.

 

Isn't Morrowind repetitive as well, as you just wander around attacking stuff?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you give the impression that you have never played Morrowind, and are making a broad generalization about its content to bolster your argument. Either that, or I think you didn't give it much attention.

 

But hey, you didn't need to do the sword fights, nor the dancing.

 

You certainly could decline the dancing part, and I often did, but the sword fights very often were compulsory.

 

Just like you don't need to take part in the "engaging" conversation in Morrowind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Morrowind actually has a very deep conversation tree, and many of the characters you meet during the main quest and the expansions have rich histories that are discussed in detail in much of the literature offered in game. Everything on this page can be read in game, and many of the characters discussed in the books can be engaged in conversation by the main PC.

[alanschu]

I have played through Morrowind.

 

I actually enjoyed the game.

 

 

 

And while I wouldn't disagree that characters had rich histories in books...that's not dialogue.

 

 

Repeatedly mashing on the skills to improve their perception of you isn't exactly "engaging."

Edited January 22, 2006 by alanschu

[Jack the Ripper]

I have played through Morrowind.

 

I actually enjoyed the game.

 

 

 

And while I wouldn't disagree that characters had rich histories in books...that's not dialogue.

 

You could meet Barenziah and Prince Helseth, the triumverate Gods of Vardenfall, Azura, Hiscene, and many, many other significant characters. There were an abundance of characters that would tell you nothing more than a few hints and rumors, but many of them had more than that on their mind. If you paid attention to the game's storyline or the various faction quests, you'd know that there were very often major conversational options that changed the nature of your character and his alliances to choose between.

 

Repeatedly mashing on the skills to improve their perception of you isn't exactly "engaging."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As a matter of fact, repeatedly mashing on the skills to improve their perception of you always results in failure. The game is set up so that if you fail a certain number of times at charm, intimidate or taunt, each progressive attempt will also fail until the character brushes you off completely as an annoyance. So I don't know where you got that, or why you haven't mentioned the number of topics you can chat about with almost any character in the game, and how they often have different opinions depending on their job, race and faction alliance.

[alanschu]

I don't remember that happening. Unless something changed more recently in a patch.

 

I had no problems (seriously) persistently clicking on charm to improve the characters.

[Gromnir]

I don't find aging or retirement from an adventuring life to be that much of a problem, really. It's just another way to look at a time limit gameplay mechanic. You could replace Fallout's time limit to destroy the Master's plans and the Mutant Base with aging for some story reasons, and this would still not matter to the gameplay nor would it really bring any negative impact.

 

Aging can also be a good way to increase replayability and from preventing players from doing everything possible in one single playtrough. I actually would have liked to see aging in Morrowind, for example.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

indeed...I think that aging and forced retirement (mind you, Pirates! has you retiring at about age 35 IIRC, which is pretty realistic) is THE solution to the open-ended problem.

 

now, if you like Morrowind just the way it is then I'm not talking to you. but if you think open-ended games need some sort of mechanism to complete the experience (WOW, I retired as a governor this time!), then there is nothing better IMO than aging and forced retirement. It is the best way to introduce opportunity costs in an otherwise unlimited playground.

 

if you don't like unlimited playgrounds without some sort of opportunity cost and balancing mechanism but refuse to play a game with aging, then linear RPGs are for you, not open-ended ones.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

the same ends can be reached w/o forced retirement. forced retirement is hardly the best mechanism for preventing 10075 and exp farming in a crpg.

 

random encounters and respawns is how folks get uber powerful in games... going beyond reasonable and rational limits envisioned by developers. heck, even the bumfuzzled d&d developers considered this problem and largely put it to rest in 3e. kill kobolds as a 1st level party and you get valuable exp. kill kobolds as a 20th level party and get... nothing.

 

so, we got a problem? nope.

 

1) cap random freaking encounters so that they is rational.

 

&

 

2) get diminishing/0 exp for killing easy hostiles.

 

 

 

no meeting up with demi-gods in the woods simply 'cause you is uber level, and make sure that after you kills your 50th wolf or cliff racer or kobold or whatever that ain't getting any experience for doing so.

 

if you wants aging in a game, then add it... but play a 40 hour game and be forced to end up enfeebled is just ridiculous... and unnecessary.

 

now, as to have voluntary aging with some benefits and handicaps... we think that such is a good idea... but forced retirement and quicksilver geriatrics is a horrible way to enforce balance.... like time limits and level caps. is options for those developers w/o

[Nartwak]

I don't think there's a forced retirement in Pirates!.

[alanschu]

You certainly do move slower and slower.

 

I imagine that if you get captured enough times, it will become a problem.

[Plano Skywalker]

...kill kobolds as a 1st level party and you get valuable exp.  kill kobolds as a 20th level party and get... nothing...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

good points and that could work....but I think aging is more than just a balancing mechanism...it also provides a purpose to an open-ended game.

 

the idea that, OK, I am going to completely ignore the main quest and do a bunch of side quests and/or faction quests....or maybe I am just going to hunt deer and sell the hides in town (heh, talk about open-ended!)....but if you have that kind of flexibility, then you also need a point and that is where forced retirement comes into play.

 

OK, so you spent 100 hours hunting deer? fine, the devs come and save you from your vicarious existence by making you retire. And, depending on how well you did your trade (and managed your money and reputation), the retirement can vary widely.

 

For me, one of the most exciting things in Pirates! was the end of the game when I found out how I retired. It provided a point to an otherwise pointless game. Now, some open-ended games have a main quest that makes the PC the center (and saviour) of the universe...that's fine but that's not why I play open-ended games.

 

The trick, of course, is in the implementation. I'm not saying Pirates! had the right relationship for time....I'm not saying Fable did....heck, maybe the game should allow us to decide what the relationship is....I'm just saying that many of us like to play our open-ended games in a really open-ended fashion and having some sort of time constraint (i.e. opportunity cost) does, in my view, help out that kind of game.

[Plano Skywalker]

I don't think there's a forced retirement in Pirates!.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I haven't played the rereleases (something that I plan to remedy soon). But I have played the old Amiga version and that version definitely forced you to retire.

 

At the beginning of the game, you get to choose a special skill (i.e. fencing, navigation, gunnery, etc). Well, if you chose Medicine as your skill, then that generally allowed you to play for much longer, as I recall.

 

Basically, you kept getting slower and slower (and get captured more often), your reputation wanes and, thusly, you are not able to attract as many recruits....the game reminds you that you need to retire. Whether it actually cuts away to that without your consent, I'm not 100% sure...but the end result is the same.

[mkreku]

I like Gothic/Gothic 2's solution the most: you actually run out of monsters to kill. The XP pool is finite.

[~Di]

You should note, however, that in Fable getting old doesn't effect anything except the cosmetic appearance of your character.  And the guy looks pretty cool when he gets old, kinda like how people Sean Connery to look back when he was a young man.  And if you donate money to the good God, you can sometimes reverse aging's effects.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There were parts of Fable that really interested me, like the ability to truly affect the world and outcome by your actions.

 

But didn't you always have that tense feeling of having to rush in order to beat some invisible clock? I dispise that. I dispised FO1 because of the time limit. I want to explore my environment, dammit, peek in every nook and cranny, talk with everyone and his duck, do all there is to do... and not have the game suddenly blast me with a foghorn while the words "TIME'S UP, YOU LOSE SUCKER" flash across the screen.

 

I just hate it when that happens.

Edited January 22, 2006 by ~Di

[~Di]

I like Gothic/Gothic 2's solution the most: you actually run out of monsters to kill. The XP pool is finite.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I liked it too! Of course I am really a big Gothic fan to begin with, lol. I do not caer for respawning monsters, because I'm not really into grinding to level for level's sake. If I go on a murder spree, it's because I have a reason to do so. I'm collecting skins, or must clear an area to provide safe escort, or have to get from point A to point B... all of which provide the motive for Gothic's combat. I like that.

 

Also, once an area is cleared, well, it's cleared. No annoying respawns to create endless combat. Probably why I hated Diablo so much. I'm sure there have been games I've enjoyed in the past that had respawns, but if so it was in spite of them not because of them.

 

Point is that I hate game-playing with a timer. I want to take my time and go at my own pace. Finishing a game with my character shuffling up to the final battle on a walker is not my idea of RPG heaven.

Edited January 22, 2006 by ~Di

[alanschu]

Actually, Diablo doesn't have respawns unless you leave the game.

[Judge Hades]

In some cases having timed quests makes sense. It makes no sense to me that the bad guys would just wait around for the protagonist to finally show up to face them. The bad guys are on a timetable. They have their own goals. They have their own needs. They are going to act regardless if your characters are there or not to stop them.

[alanschu]

I agree, and find the game world to be more interesting if it seems more alive.

[Gorgon]

Gaming industry rewiev writers are all whores. This is a fact.

 

General rule of thumb : No droling shameless fawning = Game sucks royally.

 

Drooling shameless fawning = Game may or may not be crap.

Edited January 23, 2006 by Gorgon

[Diogo Ribeiro]

In some cases having timed quests makes sense.  It makes no sense to me that the bad guys would just wait around for the protagonist to finally show up to face them.  The bad guys are on a timetable.  They have their own goals.  They have their own needs.  They are going to act regardless if your characters are there or not to stop them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree, and find the game world to be more interesting if it seems more alive.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pretty disheartening that more people don't feel the same way, really. For all the talk of immersion that's one of the things that strangely flies below people's radar. I guess credible behaviours from the big foozles just isn't as immersive as 256+ colors for my lightsber or party NPCs wanting to bang my PC after having known him/her/it only two hours ago.

[Hell Kitty]

Having to complete a quest or the game as a whole within a specific time limit doesn't necessarily equal a game world that feels more alive.

 

Does Di dislike quest timers because she has prefers pretty graphics or NPC romances? Hardly, like she said, she wants to be able to enjoy the game at her own pace, with I think is a pretty damn reasonable request, and probably the reason developers don't include more quest timers.

 

One of my favourite moments in Fahrenheit was having to make a very quick decision in the park, and I love the moments such as when the cop is knocking on Lucas' door. I love timers on a small scale like this, but I would absolutely hate to spend hours on a quest or mission, only to automatically fail because I was a minute late from completion.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Having to complete a quest or the game as a whole within a specific time limit doesn't necessarily equal a game world that feels more alive.

 

Perhaps, but by creating the sense that some of the key protagonists' actions as well of some of the major events in the gameworld are not frozen in time until you trigger something, it can lead to the creation of a certain dynamic that feels the gameworld is living and therefore reacting accordingly to what happens in it.

 

Does Di dislike quest timers because she has prefers pretty graphics or NPC romances? Hardly, like she said, she wants to be able to enjoy the game at her own pace, with I think is a pretty damn reasonable request, and probably the reason developers don't include more quest timers.

 

I didn't say or suggest Di disliked timers because of the reasons you pointed. My post wasn't aimed at her, so I'd appreciate if you didn't suggest it was.

[Hell Kitty]

Does Di dislike quest timers because she has prefers pretty graphics or NPC romances? Hardly, like she said, she wants to be able to enjoy the game at her own pace, with I think is a pretty damn reasonable request, and probably the reason developers don't include more quest timers.

 

I didn't say or suggest Di disliked timers because of the reasons you pointed. My post wasn't aimed at her, so I'd appreciate if you didn't suggest it was.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Then who are you referring to? Di is an example of someone who dislikes a certain feature and has a legitimate reason for it, but all you've done is offer up the typical boogeyman that people like to use as a scapegoat, typically called the "casual gamer". I'll take real people over imaginary ones anyday.

[Llyranor]

Well, if all quests have 'all the time in the world' to complete, it kind of breaks their plausibility. 'Will you save my cat?' 'Okay. Wait, see you in 3 months, SUCKER!' Having a quest fail because you had to prioritize other issues (and thus have appropriate consequences occur 'My cat died, you dastard!!!' 'Awesome, I was just hungry now'). This is all part of making choices, having to make decisions about what's more important and thus giving them priority. Being able to do everything is more akin to being able to joining every faction in Oblivion (I wanna do EVERYTHING!!! ROFLTUNASANDWICH!!!!), then it becomes an issue of the player wanting to have everything completely available instead of the stuff being available making sense in the game world.

 

Heck, if you just have a tendency to leave the game running while you go potty breaking, then don't have the game timer run off of real-time. Have it so that each action you perform in-game (exploring a new area, performing a mission, resting) consists of a certain amount of time in-game, rather than clock it minute-by-minute. The race against the clock becomes much more about your PC vs prioritization, rather than the player vs real-time. PC vs player.