Oblivion Thread

[Llyranor]

Will you shove it? Oblivion has no flaws.

[Powerslave]

Of course it has no flaws. It is the RPG of t3h future with next-Gen Graphics and a significant amount of "OMG-ness" in it. Phear Bethesda.

[Musopticon?]

Yeah, X-avier and soil erosion. I got it.

[WinterSun]

Don't forget Sharpe!

[Cantousent]

Put it this way, Oblivion has flaws, but you folks is nuts.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

Is it just me or does the system seem broken?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What do you mean by broken ?

 

It does seem kind of backwards since I had a better warrior in someone who didnt take warrior related skills than someone who did. Does that class as broken ?

[Kaftan Barlast]

you folks is nuts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

[Kasoroth]

The funny thing is that you don't have to worry about how your attribute points spread out. No matter what, you're going to get through the game, unless it's too difficult for you, which is when you lower the difficulty setting.

 

You're still taking an awful lot of time and text trying to explain how the game "forces" you to meta-game. It doesn't. You choose to meta-game because you see those shiny +3 and +5 multipliers and forget that you can still choose the attribute you wanted, even though it only gives +1. I played through the game creating my own character, independent of the attribute multipliers and at no point did the game become too difficult (like Gromnir experienced) or unbalanced. It did become more difficult around level 18-20 but that evened out after a while.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As you say, you can adjust the difficulty setting if things get too hard, but poor game design should not be ignored just because it's not so horrible that it renders the game unplayable. Whenever I play a game, I look for aspects that could be improved. No game is perfect, and this is one particular aspect of Oblivion that I think could have been done significantly better with a minimal amount of effort.

 

Some things, such as mounted combat, get left out simply because it's a lot of effort to implement well and there aren't enough time and resources to implement them. I tend not to complain about that sort of feature because I can fully understand the logic behind the decision.

 

On the other hand, giving a meta-gaming player 15 attribute points per level while an average player who doesn't meta-game gets about 6 to 9 seems like a poor design decision to me, and one that would be very easy to fix.

 

Personally I think that the bigger problem was the huge variance in levelling rate and equipment distribution. Early in the game I seemed to gain levels so quickly that the enemies' strength out-paced me before I had good enough equipment to deal with them. At 19th level I did the second half of the Kvatch battle (I did the first part at level 4) but I still had only a chain helm, a bunch of mithril armor, and one piece (boots I think) of elvish armor. During the quest, which involved me struggling to fight spider daedra and storm atronachs with non-magical weapons as much as possible because I couldn't afford to keep the magical ones charged, I gained to level 21, but still had the same armor.

 

After that I stopped resting and just wandered around doing quests, and in the process I ran into plenty of bandits with glass armor, then I went through a few oblivion gates and decked out my glass armor with fire shield 25, shock shield 25, chameleon 30, Feather, and Life detection. Now the game is very easy.

 

I've spent a lot of time playing the game and enjoyed it quite a bit, but it definitely has a lot of room for improvement. Personally I think that scaling the monsters to the PC's level was a poor choice because in Oblivion, level is a poor indicator of your ability to deal with more powerful monsters. The things that really matter more are:

1) your equipment

2) your skills

3) your stats

 

I think it would have been much better to scale the encounters based on location, plot progression, or even game days passed (although they should probably bump the timescale down from 30x to about 3x or 4x if they're going to use game days as a scaling mechanism) This would be better for several reasons:

 

1) It allows players to have a degree of control over the monster progression. If you're not good enough at combat to handle minotaurs, avoid dungeons with minotaurs. If you stumble into one by accident, run away and come back when you're tougher. Some characters might be able to handle it at 6th level, some not until 18th level, but that would be fine because it would be the player's choice to go to that dungeon or not. A really sneaky character might be able to go through a dungeon with tough but unobservant monsters at lower level than a brute fighter, but the fighter might have a much easier time with more observant creatures because he just hacks through them. That's fine because it gives the player control of the situation.

 

The level-based scaling, on the other hand, makes no logical sense from a "world consistency" perspective, and it's bad for game balance. A character who gains a lot of levels in non-combat skills, or who levels more quickly than his equipment can keep up is suddenly put in the position of facing much tougher enemies for no logical reason. There is no safer area to retreat to when the monsters scale over your ability (except for meta-game options, such as adjusting the difficulty slider). It puts the player in the position of wondering whether levelling up will actually be an increase in ability, or an effective decrease in ability compared to the enemies. It also encourages the player to try to make the most of every level in order to stay ahead of the enemies' power, resulting the encouragement to meta-game the stat multipliers.

 

Without level based scaling, the vast difference in multipliers would be less significant because you could just gain more levels to make up for getting lower multipliers. You might need to be level 25 to face opponents that a meta-gamer could deal with at 15, but that would be fine. The level based scaling ruins this though, because when you boost your level to 25 to make up for lower multipliers, the enemies are boosted too.

 

2) Area based scaling gives a much better sense of your character's progression because you can survive in areas that would previously have slaughtered you. It also allows the areas to be more unique and distinct from each other. With level based scaling, one necromancers' lair is pretty much like another, you'll always face opponents of about your level no matter which one you go to. With area based scaling, some might be the lairs of weak necromancers who fear the retribution of the Mage's Guild while others house powerful necromancers creating vast undead armies to wipe out the Mage's Guild. If the mighty necromancers are scaled down to be an appropriate challenge for a 4th level PC, it just doesn't make any sense that they could threaten the Mage's Guild.

 

I'm not saying that Oblivion is a bad game, because I actually enjoy it quite a bit. I'm just saying that there are a lot of things that they could have done much better in my opinion. Judging by the number of mods that reduce/limit the creature scaling and level multipliers, it seems that I'm not alone in this belief.

 

-Kasoroth

Edited May 2, 2006 by Kasoroth

[mkreku]

I agree with almost everything you write, Kasoroth, except the thing about the meta-gaming. I immersed myself in the world of Oblivion, I spent my time exploring dungeons I ran into out in the field and I did everything from really stupid quests (fisherman only needs 12 more fish scales to retire!) to really cool quests (guy trapped in his own painting). Not even once did I think about or worry about if I got 3 or 15 attribute points. At level 40+ all my major attributes had reached 100 anyhow, and with the sigil stones my equipment is as good as I ever need it to be.

 

I know the system is flawed (especially leveling and scaling) but the game is still awesome if you just let yourself have fun instead of worry about the next level or bonus to attributes. That stuff takes care of itself if you just play the game (except, perhaps the mana-linked-to-intelligence issue, which is solvable by applying +50 magicka sigil stones to your armour).

 

Also, it's funny to see lots of people on these boards (not you Kasoroth) who ridicule and mock people who meta-game in other games, but feel forced to do it in Oblivion. Powergaming and ph4t 1007 for teh win!!

[LoneWolf16]

The Beta patch, 1.01 is now available. http://theelderscrolls.com/downloads/updat...tchnotes5.htm#1

[alanschu]

Is it true they are going to charge for the actual patch?

[Kaftan Barlast]

Is it true they are going to charge for the actual patch?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think so, yes.

[alanschu]

Have we heard any official reason? I know it's something stilly like $1.98, but I've never heard of a company charging for a patch before.

[Kasoroth]

I agree with almost everything you write, Kasoroth, except the thing about the meta-gaming. I immersed myself in the world of Oblivion, I spent my time exploring dungeons I ran into out in the field and I did everything from really stupid quests (fisherman only needs 12 more fish scales to retire!) to really cool quests (guy trapped in his own painting). Not even once did I think about or worry about if I got 3 or 15 attribute points. At level 40+ all my major attributes had reached 100 anyhow, and with the sigil stones my equipment is as good as I ever need it to be.

 

I know the system is flawed (especially leveling and scaling) but the game is still awesome if you just let yourself have fun instead of worry about the next level or bonus to attributes. That stuff takes care of itself if you just play the game (except, perhaps the mana-linked-to-intelligence issue, which is solvable by applying +50 magicka sigil stones to your armour).

 

Also, it's funny to see lots of people on these boards (not you Kasoroth) who ridicule and mock people who meta-game in other games, but feel forced to do it in Oblivion. Powergaming and ph4t 1007 for teh win!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Once I had some decent equipment and my power got ahead of the monsters, it was easy to ignore the lost potential resulting from lower stat multipliers. However, around 14th level when I was still wearing Kvatch guardsman armor and suddenly getting annihilated by spriggans, minotaurs and will-o-wisps, and burning through all my magical weapons and potions and poisons just to survive and pick up a few items in chests (since those monsters don't drop much on their own), I was feeling the need for any advantage I could get, thus the encouragement to meta-game.

 

The meta-gaming is really just a symptom, not the cause of the problem, but it's hard not to think about maximizing your level benefits when it seems that the levels are boosting the enemies more than they're boosting you. The mod I made that just sets all the stat multipliers to x3 (unless you don't use any related skill, in which case they're still x1) was very helpful for allowing me to focus on the game rather than the rule system even though it probably resulted in my character being a bit weaker, because it allowed me to just play without any motivation to think about maximizing skill multipliers.

 

I agree with you when you say, "the game is still awesome if you just let yourself have fun instead of worry about the next level or bonus to attributes", but the way the level progression works it's very hard to not worry about the next level or bonus to attributes when you're struggling, and you know you can get about twice the attribute points per level by meta-gaming.

 

I like challenging games, but I like the methods of overcoming those challenges most effectively to be determined by making decisions that make sense from an in-character perspective. If the optimal path based on game mechanics (meta-game thinking) differs significantly from the optimal path based on game world consistency (in-character thinking) then the more challenging the game gets, the more it encourages and rewards meta-game thinking, and this is a serious problem in my opinion.

 

Some games have poorly designed systems and cover them up by being relatively easy, so even if your character is non-optimal because you're playing in character, it doesn't really matter because the game is easy. Once I got good equipment in Oblivion, this is basically what happened. It's far less challenging now that it was whan I had bad equipment, but it's still a lot of fun just exploring and doing quests even if I can beat or avoid most monsters very easily.

 

There is also a lot of potential for good in-character strategy in Oblivion's game engine, and when I was stuck with poor equipment, I actually survived due to creative use of alchemy to make poisons specifically to counter the monsters I was having trouble with rather than meta-gaming my levels (since my own mod prevented that anyway), but for a while I was thinking about disabling my mod so I could gain a few maxed out x5 x5 x5 levels because it seemed like I was steadily falling behind the monsters as I levelled.

 

The problem is that when the meta-game solution is extremely obvious, and the mosters level with you, the first thought that I had was that the devs expected everyone to meta-game and they balanced the monsters accordingly, so my "half-strength" character was doomed to get effectively weaker with each level he gained. Fortunately I found glass armor and a 30% chameleon ring, and realized that it was just a messed up equipment balance that was causing my problems and my character wasn't doomed, but I was definitely worried for a while.

 

Partly I think it's just that the levelled monsters annoy me because I miss the older games where you could accidentally go somewhere way above your level early in the game and get your @$$ kicked, and then come back to the same place at higher level for some payback.

 

-Kasoroth

[Cantousent]

Okay, charging for the patch sounds ridiculous. I'm sure someone can come up with a reason why it makes sense, but it doesn't. We accept flawed releases with the understanding that the developers will do what they can to fix problems. Now, of course, we're habituating ourselves to accept shorter games with just as many bugs that carry an extra charage to patch after release. If the publishers and development houses don't take us seriously as a consumer base, it's because we don't even exhibit one shred of self-respect.

[Llyranor]

I thought console games were perfect and didn't need patches?

[Jast]

Is it true they are going to charge for the actual patch?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I think so, yes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You're kidding right? Right? If they charge for a patch, honestly, I'll never touch Elder Scrolls series again, (not that I bought Oblivion anyway, I used my Blockbuster game pass. , it's not worth 60$ in my opinion. )

 

Edit: Hopefully it's only a rumor, if they do charge for a patch....well I doubt even the most rabid fanboys would support them then.

Edited May 2, 2006 by Jast

[Cantousent]

You know, Kasaroth, I like reading your novels. I really do. You're one of the most articulate and eloquent members of the forum. ....But I just don't understand why it's meta-gaming to choose the skills that lend themselves to the survival of your character. In real life, you're faced with choices in order to succeed. Frankly, it's quite in-character to choose a different set of skills in order to further your long term goals.

 

Maybe it's just angry Eldar speaking, but I can't understand the "in-character" argument at all. Now, the leveling system sucks, but that's a different story.

 

The real problem I see, and I'm not convinced it's a problem, is that the game "punishes" some character types. It's really up to the design team to create a system where the player can't make decisions that result in a character that cannot survive to the end game. However, decisions that lead to dead ends are part of real life. So, arguably, all the decisions in Oblivion are quite realistic in that regard.

[LoneWolf16]

They're not charging for the patch. What, do you think they're idiots?

[Powerslave]

I do not believe they will charge for the patch. The "downloadable content via purchase" is already controversial as it is, if they start charging for game fixes that are results of THEIR poor scripting as well...

 

But even if they DO charge for it, in 3-4 days time it will be available for free all over the internet just like the downloadable content, so...

[LoneWolf16]

Did you say free? Erm...where might...I mean...um...perhaps a gentle nudge in the direction of such a thing would be...nice...not that I'll go get it or anything. I certainly won't. No sir. Just...curious.

[Llyranor]

The Horse Armor Pack has been very popular, and exceeded what we thought it would sell.

 

Your feedback as we move forward in this is invaluable. Tell us what you want to see, how much of it, and what it might be worth to you. No, don

[Tigranes]

The patch appears to be free, dunno why people said it would cost money.

 

That said, it would have been amazingly stupid if a BETA patch, not recommended for those whose copies work properly (in theory the majority of players), cost money.

[alanschu]

I was never talking about the beta patch, but the actual patch.

 

By the way, I heard this at IGN:

 

The post also makes mention of the upcoming downloadable content, The Orrery and The Wizards Tower. Unlike the Horse Armor update earlier this week, The Orrery will add a new quest, rewards and powers for your character. Bethesda is hoping to release it next week for a cost of 150 Microsoft Points ($1.88) on the Xbox 360 Marketplace, and $1.89 for PC.

 

It does have additional content, which is likely where they will justify the monetary requirement.

 

http://pc.ign.com/articles/700/700655p1.html

 

 

EDIT: ERROR. While that page is mostly about a patch, it seems as though (upon looking closer) the charge is JUST for the new content.

 

My bad.

Edited May 3, 2006 by alanschu

[Cantousent]

Well, that's fair enough. I don't mind paying for new content. I do mind paying for the patch.