Oblivion Thread

[Tale]

Exactly.  It's not like you were off and about doing your thing, and suddenly Martin wins the game while you're off doing something else.

 

That used too happen, kinda.

 

NPCs used to solve quests and close Oblivion gates on their own. It had to be fixed, because it was preventing the player from doing some things.

 

I've heard that before and it's kind of awesome. Granted not all that helpful from a gameplay perspective, but still awesome.

[Sand]

Exactly.  It's not like you were off and about doing your thing, and suddenly Martin wins the game while you're off doing something else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That used too happen, kinda.

 

NPCs used to solve quests and close Oblivion gates on their own. It had to be fixed, because it was preventing the player from doing some things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't have a problem with that but if you are going to make a CRPG make the story of the CRPG about the character being played. If the NPCs have their own lives doing things, solving their own quests that is good, just as long the PC's story is the focus.

[alanschu]

You can be involved in a conflict, you can help stop the conflict, without being the shardbearer/son of a god/the returning king/reincarnation of a man made god.  Frodo wasn't "the chosen one."  Fate didn't decide his place, he did.

 

Fate played a large part, simply because he was a hobbit. Besides, what you just described is not what you were in Oblivion either.

 

Though it was a bit of a mistake on my part, because I typically associate "Chosen One" with being "PC is big and bad and ultimately stops great cataclysm." Is a game about saving a kingdom really, deep down, significantly different and more enjoyable if you are just "some guy" that saves it, or someone "chosen" to save it.

 

 

 

I've heard that before and it's kind of awesome. Granted not all that helpful from a gameplay perspective, but still awesome.

 

Again, it's nice, and I wouldn't mind either (I don't really like it when plots stop and wait for the player), but you will still get people complaining about it.

[Sand]

Why not make a CRPG that doesn't require the world being saved?

[Pop]

Why not make a CRPG that doesn't require the world being saved?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

High School CRPG.

 

Seriously though, aside from TES and NWN1/2, I have a hard time coming up with the-world-hangs-in-the-balance games. Maybe I haven't played enough older CRPGs.

 

Turned out in Fallout that the Master's world-domination plan was hopelessly flawed, and would have failed regardless of PC interference (Only would have been a "world" scenario had there conclusively been no life beyond Cali). F2, with its slipstream wind-of-death and whatnot, probably counts more towards the saving-world scenario.

 

And BG wasn't necessarily a "world-saving" kind of deal. Sure, things would've been bad had Sarevok become a God and Amn and BG gone to war (or had Irenicus gotten his soul back / become a Seldarine, whatever) but it wasn't a cataclysm thing. Things wouldn't have been over.

[Tale]

You can be involved in a conflict, you can help stop the conflict, without being the shardbearer/son of a god/the returning king/reincarnation of a man made god.  Frodo wasn't "the chosen one."  Fate didn't decide his place, he did.

 

Fate played a large part, simply because he was a hobbit. Besides, what you just described is not what you were in Oblivion either.

 

Though it was a bit of a mistake on my part, because I typically associate "Chosen One" with being "PC is big and bad and ultimately stops great cataclysm." Is a game about saving a kingdom really, deep down, significantly different and more enjoyable if you are just "some guy" that saves it, or someone "chosen" to save it.

 

Yes, there is a significant difference between the stories of Parn (Record of Lodoss War), Frodo (Lord of the Rings), and Drizzt (Icewind Dale Trilogy) and the stories of Aragorn (Lord of the Rings), Luke Skywalker (Star Wars), Dune, Cloud (Final Fantasy VII), Terra (Final Fantasy VI), both KOTORs, Baldur's Gate series, Raziel (Soul Reaver), and Kain (Legacy of Kain).

 

There are stories where the protagonist is, for the most part, a regular guy. Perhaps due to a chance encounter or by the finding of the courage within himself he pursues an adventure. It is usually a tale of the capability and courage of man. It tells of regular joe schmoes achieving great deeds.

 

And there are stories where the protagonist is "the chosen one." There is no chance in what occurs to him. But, he still often has to find the courage within himself to pursue the adventure. These tales are singular in their application, what goes on is not relateable to the greater world or the average person. It is something that could have only happened to these heroes because of their special status.

 

They can both be good and fantastic stories.

Edited December 31, 2006 by Tale

[alanschu]

Was Aragorn really "chosen?" Was he really anything more than the decendent of a king? Why does the heroism and courage that he display somehow become tainted and less enjoyable because he has a bloodline that contains royalty, whereas Frodo is of a special race that allows him to hold the Ring of Power without being immediately corrupted.

 

Is Luke Skywalker really "chosen?" Because he was skilled with the Force? No one else other than Luke would be able to do what he did?

 

You also talk about Cloud, the Baldur's Gate series, and so on, which are arguably the most popular and successful RPGs of their respective styles.

 

So what exactly is the significant difference? That they are "normal" and display courage? And furthermore, as I stated in my original question, is the game really more enjoyable otherwise.

[metadigital]

Just a minor tangential point of order:

"... The ring chose you, and that is a very comforting thought."

Gandalf the Grey, LotR.

 

Frodo was chosen.

[Slowtrain]

Exactly.  It's not like you were off and about doing your thing, and suddenly Martin wins the game while you're off doing something else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That used too happen, kinda.

 

NPCs used to solve quests and close Oblivion gates on their own. It had to be fixed, because it was preventing the player from doing some things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

That is totally awesome. That would have added immensely to the gameplay. No offense, SS, and I do think overall Oblivion is a fab game, but the devs made some really weird decisons when balancing Oblivion.

 

Absurdly fast skill gain and leveling

Skill system that encourages metagaming

Skill system that discourages any sort of roleplaying

Social skills that are 100% useless

Races that are completely imbalanced

Armor skills that essentially end up at the same place.

 

I could go on and on.

 

ANd here I fond out the coolest AI feature of them all is shut down rather than harnessed.

 

Sad.

[thepixiesrock]

The problem stems that every CRPG usually ends up being about saving the world or civilization as we know it and only the PC can do it.  Why don't we just ditch saving the world idea altogether and just have a normal adventuring CRPG.  Sure there maybe bad guys to fight but they aren't threatening the world.  Threatening a shipping, or seeking to raid a few towns maybe, but not threatening the world.

 

You know, something low key.  Something that you aren't the chosen one while at the same time there isn't a need for a chosen one.  Just everyday people staving off cruelty, evil, and whatnot that happens to come across their everyday lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Isn't that like the structure of an MMORPG? And still, a game with no included storyline would need to have something else that apeals to the person to get them to want to play. The game would probably heavily rely on the setting then, and that might be tough to do, getting a setting that would attract enough people to buy a game with no storyline.

[metadigital]

The problem stems that every CRPG usually ends up being about saving the world or civilization as we know it and only the PC can do it.  Why don't we just ditch saving the world idea altogether and just have a normal adventuring CRPG.  Sure there maybe bad guys to fight but they aren't threatening the world.  Threatening a shipping, or seeking to raid a few towns maybe, but not threatening the world.

 

You know, something low key.  Something that you aren't the chosen one while at the same time there isn't a need for a chosen one.  Just everyday people staving off cruelty, evil, and whatnot that happens to come across their everyday lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't that like the structure of an MMORPG? And still, a game with no included storyline would need to have something else that apeals to the person to get them to want to play. The game would probably heavily rely on the setting then, and that might be tough to do, getting a setting that would attract enough people to buy a game with no storyline.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As long as it would entail a lot of grinding, it sounds like a winnar!

[Tale]

Is there any point where I tried making the claim that one was more enjoyable than the other? I merely am saying they are different stories.

 

Yes, Aragorn was chosen. The sword he carried in Return of the King was for him alone. The undead army that fought for him would have listened to no other man. His heritage played a lot into what he could do, who listened to him, and other things.

 

Luke Skywalker was definitely a chosen, too. He was part of the prophecy that balanced the force through his father's redemption. Something that only he (or maybe his sister) could have accomplished.

 

These are significant differences. However, the main significance of the difference comes in how the character develops and how the audience can view that development.

 

BUT absolutely none of this can apply to games like Oblivion or Morrowind. They're centered around giving the player a world to do anything they want in. This discussion applies to character development (beyond stats).

[Darque]

Luke Skywalker was definitely a chosen, too.  He was part of the prophecy that balanced the force through his father's redemption.  Something that only he (or maybe his sister) could have accomplished.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Kinda... after the fact though thanks to story revisions.

[Tale]

Just a minor tangential point of order:

"... The ring chose you, and that is a very comforting thought."

Gandalf the Grey, LotR.

 

Frodo was chosen.

I'm pretty sure that's a misquote. The Ring, being a thing of pure evil that it is, would have not chosen Frodo unless it was sure it could use him.

 

"There are other forces at work in this world Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring. In which case, you were also meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought. " from the movie. I'll agree that Frodo was a chosen.

 

Luke Skywalker was definitely a chosen, too.  He was part of the prophecy that balanced the force through his father's redemption.  Something that only he (or maybe his sister) could have accomplished.

 

Kinda... after the fact though thanks to story revisions.

 

Regardless of story revisions relating to the prophecy or previously believed notions that anyone could become a Jedi, Luke was the only one capable of getting through to his father.

 

The problem stems that every CRPG usually ends up being about saving the world or civilization as we know it and only the PC can do it.  Why don't we just ditch saving the world idea altogether and just have a normal adventuring CRPG.  Sure there maybe bad guys to fight but they aren't threatening the world.  Threatening a shipping, or seeking to raid a few towns maybe, but not threatening the world.

 

You know, something low key.  Something that you aren't the chosen one while at the same time there isn't a need for a chosen one.  Just everyday people staving off cruelty, evil, and whatnot that happens to come across their everyday lives.

 

 

Isn't that like the structure of an MMORPG? And still, a game with no included storyline would need to have something else that apeals to the person to get them to want to play. The game would probably heavily rely on the setting then, and that might be tough to do, getting a setting that would attract enough people to buy a game with no storyline.

 

He's not saying anything about having no included storyline. Just that the storyline doesn't have to do what many other games like doing (note: I'm not saying all) and that is forcing an epic story in a short timespan.

Edited January 1, 2007 by Tale

[metadigital]

Just a minor tangential point of order:

"... The ring chose you, and that is a very comforting thought."

Gandalf the Grey, LotR.

 

Frodo was chosen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm pretty sure that's a misquote. The Ring, being a thing of pure evil that it is, would have not chosen Frodo unless it was sure it could use him.

 

"There are other forces at work in this world Frodo, besides the will of evil. Bilbo was meant to find the Ring. In which case, you were also meant to have it. And that is an encouraging thought. " from the movie. I'll agree that Frodo was a chosen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, that was the one I was trying to quote from memory.

[thepixiesrock]

The problem stems that every CRPG usually ends up being about saving the world or civilization as we know it and only the PC can do it.  Why don't we just ditch saving the world idea altogether and just have a normal adventuring CRPG.  Sure there maybe bad guys to fight but they aren't threatening the world.  Threatening a shipping, or seeking to raid a few towns maybe, but not threatening the world.

 

You know, something low key.  Something that you aren't the chosen one while at the same time there isn't a need for a chosen one.  Just everyday people staving off cruelty, evil, and whatnot that happens to come across their everyday lives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Isn't that like the structure of an MMORPG? And still, a game with no included storyline would need to have something else that apeals to the person to get them to want to play. The game would probably heavily rely on the setting then, and that might be tough to do, getting a setting that would attract enough people to buy a game with no storyline.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He's not saying anything about having no included storyline. Just that the storyline doesn't have to do what many other games like doing (note: I'm not saying all) and that is forcing an epic story in a short timespan.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's true, he isn't saying a game with no storyline, what he says doesn't allow a lot of room for much of a storyline. I'm going to stand by my statement. I'm going off when he says " Just everyday people staving off cruelty, evil, and whatnot that happens to come across their everyday lives." that doesn't make for much of a story. It really is more a setting thing than a story.

[alanschu]

Is there any point where I tried making the claim that one was more enjoyable than the other?  I merely am saying they are different stories.

 

You didn't. I asked it.

 

Luke Skywalker was definitely a chosen, too.  He was part of the prophecy that balanced the force through his father's redemption.  Something that only he (or maybe his sister) could have accomplished.

 

I think the prophecy was a sham personally. And if not, it seemed to apply more to Anakin than to Luke. Luke was just the benficiary of good genes

 

These are significant differences.  However, the main significance of the difference comes in how the character develops and how the audience can view that development.

 

I understand this. In terms of how we play the game (since I'm trying to not diverge too far off of the idea being used in videogaming) and the enjoyment we get out of it, I don't see there as being too many differences.

 

And if you're not someone that is Boo-urnsing towards the idea of a Chosen One, then none of my messages really apply to you then.

 

 

 

EDIT: I agree wholeheartedly with Pixies' assessment of Hades' comment.

Edited January 1, 2007 by alanschu

[Pop]

I think the prophecy was a sham personally.  And if not, it seemed to apply more to Anakin than to Luke.  Luke was just the benficiary of good genes

Worked better within the story, though. The assumption that Anakin would restore order to the force was part of the Jedi's hubris. Apparently nobody was smart enough to recognize that the Sith were just as much a part of the Force as the Jedi, and there were more Jedi than Sith. Or maybe nobody really knew the definition of the word "balance". Considering George Lucas' pop mystical aspirations and his terribly written characters, that just might have been the case.

 

Seems to me that in a way, Anakin did bring balance to the Force, seeing how Luke sprang from his loins and all. But in another, more accurate way, he didn't. Unless I've got it wrong. I'm not a big SW scholar as it is. Anyway, there aren't any coincidences in SW, thus implying a predetermination of roles and thus, everybody is their own special Chosen One.

 

What are we arguing about again?

[Tale]

I have no qualm with the concept of the chosen one. I do have a qualm with its constant overuse in order to speed up a story progression towards defeating a great evil.

 

In order to get a character to go from a humble beginning to be able to accomplish epic feats within a single game he is given the title of chosen one and abilities as a consequence.

 

I think too many games are quick to make the main character the center of epic conflict that will change the world! Too much overly dramatic importance placed on events in the game. Like everyone's competing to try to be as epic as Star Wars or LOTR without spending the time and effort to develop the story.

Edited January 1, 2007 by Tale

[Pop]

Moving back to topic...

 

Scott Tobias, one of the prominent writers for the Onion's AV Club, ranked TES4 as the best game of the year.

 

Here's what he had to say about it.

When considering the gulf between this game and the others on this list, think of the Grand Canyon. The latest in the venerable role-playing series, upgraded to a fine next-gen polish, boasts so much depth and otherworldly intrigue that it could easily have occupied an avid gamer for the entire year. Getting through the topographically diverse land of Cyrodiil

Edited January 1, 2007 by Pop

[alanschu]

I think the prophecy was a sham personally.  And if not, it seemed to apply more to Anakin than to Luke.  Luke was just the benficiary of good genes

Worked better within the story, though. The assumption that Anakin would restore order to the force was part of the Jedi's hubris. Apparently nobody was smart enough to recognize that the Sith were just as much a part of the Force as the Jedi, and there were more Jedi than Sith. Or maybe nobody really knew the definition of the word "balance". Considering George Lucas' pop mystical aspirations and his terribly written characters, that just might have been the case.

 

Seems to me that in a way, Anakin did bring balance to the Force, seeing how Luke sprang from his loins and all. But in another, more accurate way, he didn't. Unless I've got it wrong. I'm not a big SW scholar as it is. Anyway, there aren't any coincidences in SW, thus implying a predetermination of roles and thus, everybody is their own special Chosen One.

 

What are we arguing about again?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I feel (and it seems you do too) that the "balance" to the force was wiping out most of the Jedi.

[Shadowstrider]

So, let me get this straight, Oblivion beats games like Gears of War, NWN2, Dead Rising, and Bully, and clearly the reviewer is retarded?

 

If you want to say he is biased, perhaps even simple, I'll say "ok," but to insinuate that he is retarded simply because he enjoyed Oblivion... someone is biased, and it's not just the reviewer.

 

P.s. happy new year, bitches.

[Darque]

I feel (and it seems you do too) that the "balance" to the force was wiping out most of the Jedi.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Exactly.

[Pop]

I've got no problem with his enjoyment of Oblivion, obviously he enjoys it, that's not what I take issue with. The list isn't "The Games that Scott Tobias most enjoyed in '06", it was "The Best Games of '06", which to me aren't the same things, although some would make the Klosterman-esque argument that all such things are, being subjective POV kinds of things. But he is a professional reviewer, and he isn't posting it in the blog section, but the "games" section. The AV Club hasn't ever really been a CHUD style, prominently editorial site.

 

When they make a statement of quality, it's done so objectively. When they give Children of Men an A, they're not saying "reviewer X thinks Children of Men is an A movie", they're saying "It is the case that Children of Men is an A quality movie". With this, he's not saying "Oblivion is the best game I've played this year" he's saying "Oblivion is the best game of the year", and the official stance of the site itself is split up between these 2 reviewers (I've no doubt that if they were to make a gestalt list, Oblivion would be on top).

 

But that's all really beside the point. The point was that Scott Tobias gave a glowing review, which he could have done and I would be fine with, if he actually had good reasons. But he doesn't. His breathless mention of "personal relations" and RPG Strategy (?) casts doubt on his review, simply because I've yet to see any of these things that are apparently significant and awe-inspiring from the game, let alone hear them described by anyone other than Mr. Tobias. Thus, I disparage the quality of his article, and his choice of Oblivion as "Best of the Year".

 

 

*edit - It was "RPG Strategy" instead of "RPG Tactics". As for Tobias being "retarded", nonsense. I said the list he made (with its references to "avid gamers") was lightweight and easily dismissable. Furthermore, I said he might just be "ignorant", which is far from "retarded".

Edited January 1, 2007 by Pop

[Slowtrain]

In terms of reviews there's always going to be a personal side to them. If he felt a personal relationship with characters in the game, then he did. Its not really a debateable point. It's real to him and will factor in to his evaluation of the game.

 

On to the larger point, Oblivion was one of the best games of the year. In terms of putting together a quality product that does what it wants to do, Oblivion succeeds masterfully. It may not be the absolute BEST game of the year, but any list that doesn't have it in the top ten or twenty is suspect. It would be similar to omitting Diablo from best game of 1998 or 1997 or whatever. You may not like it, but it is still a masterful piece of work.

 

Personally, I think Oblivion has flaws big enough to drive an elephant through. Some really bad design decisions as well, that either don't make sense in the context of the game (for example really really fast leveling in a game that is so huge and so filled with things to do), things that are simply broken (the persuasion wheel requires no speechcraft skill to be 100% successful with, lockpicking requires no security skill to be pretty much completely successful at), thngs that are useless (mercantile and speechcraft). etc and so forth.

 

But it still one of the most professional and well-put together games I've ever played