Oblivion First Impressions

[Briosafreak]

If you can't see my idea why are you replying? It's not a problem of not beeing able to play the game, but why should i play it? What is my motivation? Like MCA once said, why "do i give s&%$ ? And talking about sandbox games, the better examples of that sort of games are MMORPGs, WHERE LEVELING MATTERS, and the freedom from games like Fallout, WHERE LEVELING MATTERS. So it seems you haven't thought things over the soundbites you hear from Beth, that's too bad.

 

By the way i thought this was a topic on general impressions regarding the game, not just about positive impressions, so why are you complaining about my peeves with the game? It's not that i am the only one either, you should try the TES forum a few times more.

 

 

Since you haven't told me why leveling matters in this game, meaning that the devs could very well not allowed any leveling that it wouldn't matter, i really don't understand your stand. I don't mind people having a blast with the game, like my old time friend Eldar, and making it fun for themselves somehow, i'm just stating why the "inovative aproach" is flawed in my view, and that the game has many other problems, specially for those that saw this type of game much better made in GothicII, with proper leveling that wasn't a balance nightmare, but an engaging experience in rope playing (with many problems too, but at least the AI wasn't silly beyond belief like in TES:Oblivion...).

[Musopticon?]

Here we go again...

Edited April 9, 2006 by Musopticon?

[Lord Satasn]

-snip-

 

Hey I never claimed to be in love with the implementation of horses in Oblivion. As ShadowPaladin pointed out, being unable to engage in combat from horseback seems odd, since they are there. I also think a big part of the clunkiness I mentioned is more due to somewhat weak implementation, rather than realism.

 

I do think you're being a bit excessive in claiming they're a waste of resources. Look, if we're gonna be hit over the head with these fantasy worlds with crazy magic that can revive people from the dead, exquisitely crafted uber weapons, complex chemical concontions that can do all sorts of neat stuff, it's about time someone figured out how to ride a f'in horse, right? It's a logical step to have mounts in a game with a large medieval gameworld you're supposed to explore.

 

Horses often play a significant part in the overall makeup of a dynamic character too. Gandalf wouldn't have been quite as interesting without Shadowfax, neither would the Riders of Rohan without their trusty steeds. My guy is a knight, a knight just wouldn't be complete without a horse to ride. Nevermind that there's no way in hell anyone decked out from head to toe in extremely heavy, solid metal plates is gonna travel very far without a horse in the first place. Medieval/fantasy heroes and horses go together like peanut butter & jelly. So yes, their presence does add something rather significant IMO, aside from just allowing you to get from A to B in the game faster.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I agree, since this game isn't turn based like kotor, it's very much like fable...but much, MUCH, better role playing than fable...better action than fable (in my opinion) and a better story than fable (which I hope you agree)....but all of these things are just my opinion...but the one thing that this game has over a similar game like fable is just the fact that you can ride horses and go from A to B fluidly, wihtout loading screens (while on the horse I mean), its just seamless and adds so much more to the feel of the game and enjoyment, and makes you feel like you're your character and that you're in that world and it gives the game life. Also, even though the NPC's interactions with eachother can be REALLY cheesy and not make sense...for instance...

 

"How goes it?" "Good" "Have you ever stayed at the king and queen tavern?" "leave me alone" "Well met"

 

haha

 

it STILL makes the game better for the most part, because it gives the game life and makes the world seem more real, as well as how you can just sit anywhere you want at anytime.

 

I never played morrowind or any of the previous elder scrolls games, frankly because I'm not a hardcore rpg'er, but this game is by far the best I've ever played even though I'm much more fond of the star wars universe....Oblivion has made me more interested in its world just by how much depth there is to the game...it makes it seem like its an actual place rather than a traditional game...

Edited April 9, 2006 by Lord Satasn

[Gromnir]

"This is not balance, this is creating a pointless game mechanic."

 

well actually, in point o' fact, the point of the mechanic is to keep the game challenging regardless of level... so yeah, the mechanic does have a point, and it is balance.

 

however, we recognize a problem or two...

 

1) the balance is such a blunt and inelegant tool that it leads to often ridiculous results that put too much strain on the credulity of many players.

 

2) it doesn't work.

 

the first problem ain't an issue for Gromnir, but it coulda' been easily avoided by bethesda even so. scale encounters has one key use: to keep game challenging throughout the lifespan of game. the tool they use to achieve their end is to scale EVERY encounter. fight in the arena at level 1? fine, is a level 1 encounter. fight a highwayman who wants 100gp from you when you is level 20 and the brigand is likely to be wearing a king's ransom in glass armour. these kinda results bother some folks.

 

so, how you avoid? add a basement and/or a ceiling on various encounter types. maybe the random brigand encounter never becomes tougher than an encounter scaled for level 10... but it can scale down to level 1. the arena, on the other hand, might start scale at minimum level 10... and go up from there so that a level 20 character would still feel appropriately challenged, but that a level 5 character would probably have to cheat to make it through the arena.

 

implementation of such a simple measure would, for most people, solve the big issues they gots with scale... while some peoples would still complain that they were not feeling appropriately invulnerable at late stages of game, and were unable t find disproportionately powerful equipment at low levels

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Well lets see.

 

1. Too much luck involved.

2. Scaling can make the game both laughably easy or ridiculously hard depending on 1.

[metadigital]

If you can't see my idea why are you replying? It's not a problem of not beeing able to play the game, but why should i play it? What is my motivation? Like MCA once said, why "do i give s&%$ ? And talking about sandbox games, the better examples of that sort of games are MMORPGs, WHERE LEVELING MATTERS, and the freedom from games like Fallout, WHERE LEVELING MATTERS. So it seems you haven't thought things over the soundbites you hear from Beth, that's too bad.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. Because I was replying to a fallacious assertion you were making;
    
   
2. Don't!
    
   
3. To have fun.
    
   
4. Who knows what motivates you? I don't care, personally.
    
   
5. Levelling matters in a MMORPGs because lower level characters are connon fodder. If you aren't level 60, then the game is just a grind to get there.
    
   
6. I haven't heard ANY soundbites from Bethesda, I am just refuting the illogic of your comment with my own game experiences.

   By the way I thought this was a topic on general impressions regarding the game, not just about positive impressions, so why are you complaining about my peeves with the game? It's not that I am the only one either, you should try the TES forum a few times more.
   

   <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

    
   
7. All first impressions are on topic, as are all comments on those first impression. Which is why my comment was on topic, just like yours.
    
   
8. I wasn't complaining about your peeves, I was just pointing out the fallacious nature of them.
    
   
9. No thanks, I like the community here. But thanks for the thought, it's sweet.
   

Since you haven't told me why leveling matters in this game, meaning that the devs could very well not allowed any leveling that it wouldn't matter, I really don't understand your stand. I don't mind people having a blast with the game, like my old time friend Eldar, and making it fun for themselves somehow, I'm just stating why the "innovative aproach" is flawed in my view, and that the game has many other problems, specially for those that saw this type of game much better made in Gothic II, with proper leveling that wasn't a balance nightmare, but an engaging experience in role playing (with many problems too, but at least the AI wasn't silly beyond belief like in TES:Oblivion ...).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why do I have to tell you what the devs were doing? Am I working for Bethesda? All I know is that they created an engaging game, that I am enjoying playing. The levels are just there to make the game advance with your PC. They ain't perfect, by a long stretch: Gromnir is right, they are very clumsy. But, that said, they do work.

 

PS I didn't like Morrowind.

[Briosafreak]

Gromnir have you ever thought that they don't work because, well, the system makes any need or motivation about leveling pointless? that simple, we can racionalise all we want and try to patch things but in the end there's simply no point. The game could be an FPS, with better guns and more polished skills giving the progression the player character would have, that it would mean something. Like it is it's a null sum.

 

 

metadigital there's nothing falacious about the game killing imersion with how the leveling up of the world occurs, and imersion was the main selling point of Bethesda regarding the game. There's nothing falacious about the gameplay beeing broken to a few players that were expecting some motivation about developing your character, wich is easilly proven by the fact there are already a bunch of mods trying to fix things up, either with some low scale changes like in the same field of what Gromnir proposes or trying to get a feeling of acomplishment by leveling up almost like in Dagerfall.

 

And again if you don't care why are you still replying with poorly thought short sentences? Don't you have some moderation to do, or go and buy the horses armour?

 

They were made just for the gamers like you, enjoy.

[metadigital]

Gromnir have you ever thought that they don't work because, well, the system makes any need or motivation about leveling pointless? that simple, we can racionalise all we want and try to patch things but in the end there's simply no point[1]. The game could be an FPS, with better guns and more polished skills giving the progression the player character would have, that it would mean something. Like it is it's a null sum.

 

metadigital there's nothing falacious[2] about the game killing imersion[3] with how the leveling up of the world occurs, and imersion was the main selling point of Bethesda regarding the game. There's nothing falacious about the gameplay beeing[4] broken to a few players that were expecting some motivation about developing your character, wich[5] is easilly proven by the fact there are already a bunch of mods trying to fix things up, either with some low scale changes like in the same field of what Gromnir proposes or trying to get a feeling of acomplishment by leveling up almost like in Dagerfall.[6]

 

And again if you don't care why are you still replying with poorly thought short sentences?[7] Don't you have some moderation to do, or go and buy the horses armour? [8]

 

They were made just for the gamers like you, enjoy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. There is a point: your PC becomes more powerful (read: more adept at wielding weapons or casting magic).
   
2. fallacious (not sure how you messed this up as you could see how I spelt it), sic passim;
   
3. immersion (et sic passim)
   
4. being
   
5. which
   
6. Fans will make mods to suit themselves: that's THE WHOLE POINT in having a Constructor Set!
   
7. You are hardly one to attack my syntax (vide supra);
   
8. I may even get the Horse's armour add-on, if I feel like it.
   Moderation is a part time voluntary role: I still get to contribute to the fora. I just have the added responsibility to keep discussions open.
   

But thanks for your concern, it means so much to me!

[Briosafreak]

There is a point: your PCbecomes more powerful (read: more adept at wielding weapons or casting magic).

 

So all the NPCs, making this a null sum. Get it now?

 

I may even get the Horse's armour add-on, if I feel like it.

 

Yep, i had figured that

Edited April 9, 2006 by Briosafreak

[mkreku]

May I recommend a nice mod for those who thinks Oblivion's scaling is gamebreaking?

 

Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul

---

http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/index.p...howtopic=348431

[metadigital]

There is a point: your PC becomes more powerful (read: more adept at wielding weapons or casting magic).

 

So all the NPCs, making this a null sum. Get it now?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just for you, soon it might become clear ...

 

Edit:

PS It's not a zero-sum.

 

zero-sum

n adjective denoting a game or situation in which whatever is gained by one side is lost by the other.

 

As the PC gains power, so do the NPCs.

Edited April 9, 2006 by metadigital

[Briosafreak]

May I recommend a nice mod for those who thinks Oblivion's scaling is gamebreaking?

 

Oscuro's Oblivion Overhaul

---

http://www.elderscrolls.com/forums/index.p...howtopic=348431

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yep, seems like a good idea, i'll try it after i make some more exploration of the delights of vanilla Oblivion.

[Llyranor]

Wouldn't it be negative sum, anyway?

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Leveling dosnt really give a game purpose. But it does give the player a goal.

 

CRPG or MMPORG when you start off you are weak relative to the rest of the world. As you level you become stronger and can go places that would have killed you previously. That makes leveling a worthwhile "goal". When I was a poor level 5 character (in EQ) I got stepped on by a giant. The satisfaction when the character could actually kill giants was beyond measure.

 

If you take a the main plot of a CRPG you as you start out the game (lets say KOTOR) dosnt have a chance of completing the plot. You need to train and get stronger in order to make that possible.

 

This is where Oblivion differs. You dont need to to level to explore the world.

You dont need to level to complete the main quest. Indeed the only real purpose of leveling is to activate the shiny toys further up the loot table.

[Dhruin]

Metadigital, I wish you'd find better arguments than "Metagaming!!" every time someone posts something negative about OB, while at the same time patently advocating metagaming.

 

And being smart over the spelling and syntax of a non-native English speaker just lowers your position further.

 

What a jackass.

[Kaftan Barlast]

The ideal "balancing" is to set the progression of the PC and the difficulty of his opponents so that:

• He is challenged enough to keep him on his toes but without becomming frustrated
  
• As the PC levels up and gains access to better equipment, he is sometimes pitted against lower level opponents so that he can really feel that he has become more powerful.
  
• At lvl1 you combat kobolds. At levl 20 you combat dragons.. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE PLAYER MEET LVL20 KOBOLDS!!!
  

in short. you could write a 400page book about this.

Edited April 9, 2006 by Kaftan Barlast

[Darque]

:

• At lvl1 you combat kobolds. At levl 20 you combat dragons.. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE PLAYER MEET LVL20 KOBOLDS!!!
  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I always hated this.

 

I never liked the static nature of monsters, the idea of fighting "low level enemies" that level up as you do is beyond awesome.

[metadigital]

Metadigital, I wish you'd find better arguments than "Metagaming!!" every time someone posts something negative about OB, while at the same time patently advocating metagaming.

 

And being smart over the spelling and syntax of a non-native English speaker just lowers your position further.

 

What a jackass.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll refrain from editing your post; mainly because it demonstrates that you have no argument to make, and have resorted to name-calling.

1. I call it as I see it. Have you another explanation? Another way to express the issue? Go ahead: I am not closing the debate, I am just making my own personal observations. Rather than lowering the tone (much more than you are even accusing me of doing) by name-calling, why don't you come up with an argument? I will be the first to admit if it's right.
   
2. The poster attacked my spelling; I was acting in self-defence. (Go and look.) Or should I just sit and be a target?
   

But thanks for playing!

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

The ideal "balancing" is to set the progression of the PC and the difficulty of his opponents so that:

• He is challenged enough to keep him on his toes but without becomming frustrated
   
  
• As the PC levels up and gains access to better equipment, he is sometimes pitted against lower level opponents so that he can really feel that he has become more powerful.
   
  
• At lvl1 you combat kobolds. At levl 20 you combat dragons.. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE PLAYER MEET LVL20 KOBOLDS!!!
  

in short. you could write a 400page book about this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Actually what I'm seriously not liking now is there isnt anywhere I can go where the game will be more challenging. Like when I was playing EQ some days I'd feel like a nice "easy" game so I would go to a zone where I was above most of the things in it. Sometimes I'd feel like more of a challenge so I'd go to a higher level zone. Thats not something you can do in Oblivion.

 

I can "power" down my character (use less useful stuff etc) but I can do that in a game that dosnt have scaling anyway.

[StillLife]

Yep, seems like a good idea, i'll try it after i make some more exploration of the delights of vanilla Oblivion.

 

Been through this several times on the Codex, but what the hell.

 

On Oblivion's level scaling:

 

What's the point of having things scale?

 

1. It's not a linear game you're trying to power your way to the end of. It's a sandbox. If you play it 20 hours, or 100, the level scaling will ensure the game is always at least moderately challenging, that is one of the main functions of the system. If enemies always remain near your power level, you'll always find a challenge to face in the game. There is no getting to an uber level where you can one-shot everything, or any fear of venturing somewhere that is too high above your level either. If somethings extremely difficult, you just need to try harder, utilize more beneficial equipment, or lower the difficulty. There's never a need to give up just because something is above your level.

 

Why am I supposed to be motivated?

 

1. It's assumed your desire to be entertained through playing the game should be enough motivation...to keep playing. Does someone play an online FPS or a game like Vice City for the thrill of artificially enhancing the strength of their character? No.

 

2. Many of the rewards(houses, decorations for your homes, horses, nice magical gear, etc.) in the game come through static monetary requirements. To get more money, you need to keep leveling. Selling a few ebony pieces of armor you find in a dungeon is a lot more profitable than selling a couple rusty iron pieces of armor.

 

3. At certain skill milestones, your character receives perks which provide various benefits. From different offensive abilities and effects, the ability to run faster, and stuff like that.

 

4. There are a few quests which have a level requirement to begin.

 

Worth pointing out that not all enemies in the game seem to scale with your level. Certain creatures you encounter at lower levels appear to have a cap to them; at some point you'll be able to kill them in one hit for the rest of your time with that character. I could be mistaken, but it seems to be the case with many humanoid enemies too, with the difference being that their equipment continues to scale so they're not total pushovers. Rather than just the same old monsters getting stronger with you, new powerful ones will start popping up as you advance though.

 

Also at higher levels, you'll come across various magical equipment that greatly boosts your stats or defenses and does give you a noticeable power edge over everything from that point forward.

 

Okay, all that said, the incentives in the game, while present, are weak which is why the system can feel pointless at times. Unless you're really thrilled by the idea of having the fastest horse in the game, and a house in each city that is. That--as Gromnir suggested--is where Bethesda ultimately failed. There's nothing inherently wrong with the system itself, and the mere fact it's not traditional doesn't make it so. It's really very smart system in a game that is striving to be a sandbox RPG. I think that's why people are disagreeing with you here Brios, you seem to be arguing that it's bad just because it's not traditional.

[Briosafreak]

As the PC gains one level, so all the other NPCs, making his gains irrelevant, meaning worthless. Let's turn to wikipedia:

Zero-sum describes a situation in which a participant's gain or loss is exactly balanced by the losses or gains of the other participant(s).

 

What i am saying is that in fact in the motivation rows, the "why should i care" rows, you could place a null value, since no change of the surrounding context would ocurr, meaning that for x+0 you can put 1, 2, 3, 10000 but the result will always be Zero, so you very well can put Zero and get on with your life. If everyone wins something everyone stays in the same relative position, with the problem that you have to fight hard and spend time and resources to do it, while the others gain it automatically. So while your character gains a level, you in fact lost resources and time while not getting a real benefit in relation to the other parts of the gameworld, just status quo.

 

 

 

This is not balance, it's an algorithm designed to make everything stay the same while LOOKING diferent. This way the devs don't spend their time balancing things while giving the right amount of unbalance to allow movement. You react to try to find a balance or to brake the current balance, in order to have gains ,that might be of selfish self interest or altruistic nature, by balancing things again more to your liking. Movement to defend a balance, movement to create a new balance, that's defense and attack, that's what games are, and for that you defend one equilibrium or attack another. Movement comes from the balancing of diferent forces, but if everything is perfectly balanced there's no movement.

 

Wich is the position i'm now in Oblivion, what shall i do to solve this? If i won't have real gains in relative terms to the gameworld, why should i bother leveling up?

 

Edit: this answer was to the metasomething guy, if he had replied like Stillife i wouldn't have continued the discussion. Learn a thing or two about debating with him metadudeguy, you really need it.

 

Stillife i understand where you are coming from, but still i'm not going to be convinced, the nothing to gain with the leveling in relative terms can create a nice sandbox, but not a fullfilling game to me, it's like making tourism instead playing an epic, wich was what i was promissed.

 

Still if some folks found a way of having fun with the game that's great, that doesn't bother me.

 

Trying to be paternalistic when you haven't "leveled" enough to do it, that's another thing

Edited April 9, 2006 by Briosafreak

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

As the PC gains one level, so all the other NPCs, making his gains irrelevant,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That depends entirely on what you happened to find during that level. Which you could cite as flaw if you felt like it.

 

You could also see it as an indicator of how unimportant the character is compared to the characters equipment.

[Kaftan Barlast]

:

• At lvl1 you combat kobolds. At levl 20 you combat dragons.. YOU DO NOT HAVE THE PLAYER MEET LVL20 KOBOLDS!!!
  

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I always hated this.

 

I never liked the static nature of monsters, the idea of fighting "low level enemies" that level up as you do is beyond awesome.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

So youre one of those types who like hacking level 46 rats in EQ? "

 

 

But you have to balance this approach, too. FO1&2 is a good example, sure theres the Enclave or minugun-equipped supermutants but theres also raiders and other lowlifes that are just as fun to combat even though you kill them with one shot.

[Darque]

So youre one of those types who like hacking level 46 rats in EQ? "

 

 

But you have to balance this approach, too. FO1&2 is a good example, sure theres the Enclave or minugun-equipped supermutants but theres also raiders and other lowlifes that are just as fun to combat even though you kill them with one shot.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Never played EQ.

 

I mean more along the lines of Kobolds, Orcs and Goblins.

 

One of the things I hated in DND was the fact these supposed "intelligent" races never kept pace with the player characters.

 

Games with "intelligent enemies" should have them scale.

[StillLife]

Leveling dosnt really give a game purpose. But it does give the player a goal.

 

CRPG or MMPORG when you start off you are weak relative to the rest of the world. As you level you become stronger and can go places that would have killed you previously. That makes leveling a worthwhile "goal". When I was a poor level 5 character (in EQ) I got stepped on by a giant. The satisfaction when the character could actually kill giants was beyond measure.

 

If you take a the main plot of a CRPG you as you start out the game (lets say KOTOR) dosnt have a chance of completing the plot. You need to train and get stronger in order to make that possible.

 

This is where Oblivion differs. You dont need to to level to explore the world.

You dont need to level to complete the main quest. Indeed the only real purpose of leveling is to activate the shiny toys further up the loot table.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What you described is one of the reasons why I barely consider Oblivion an RPG. I am enjoying it for the most part, but I don't get the same thing out of it that I do a CRPG. It appeals more to my taste for first-person shooters--one of my other favorite genres--than anything. I think if someone goes into it expecting an experience similar to a regular RPG, it pretty much fails miserably in that respect.