Oblivion Thread

[Girias_Solo]

And what is good about Oblivion Crashgirl?

 

The random dungeons of bread and apple chests?

 

The sheer lack of quests that Morrowind had?

 

The ability to be everything in the game?

 

The 'Oblivion' areas that were all the same?

 

I could mention many more things that turned me off the game in a short space of time, but I think you get the drift. In its defence, I will say its a decent FPS with stats. It has nice graphics. Its combat engine is good for an action game.

 

I would like to know, in your opinion, why its a great game. What parts made it brilliant? How did it trump its predesessor and what were the improvements?

[metadigital]

The moral of this review is don't drive elephants! (they are dangerous).

[Sand]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree. I am biased for NWN2 and I like it over Oblivion but Oblivion has some good things about it that cannot be denied, though some of the awards it got is completely off base.

[Sand]

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}>

 

No, it has a focused story line around the PC, just not one that revolves saving the world or the character being the chosen one.

[Shadowstrider]

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".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The primary of objective of any game is to provide the player fun. If Scott Tobias had the most fun playing Oblivion, that would make it the best game he has played all year. If not how much fun, how do you judge what "the best" game is?

 

There is no so-called objective way to judge a game. Do you judge it by graphics? If so, Dark Kingdom for PS3 has some of the best cloth simulation I've ever seen! Do you judge it by "gameplay?" EA's Madden franchise has some great gameplay, except for the fact that it's pretty much the same game year after year. Do you judge it by innovation or invention? That's a great idea too! I know plenty of inventive games, Gears of War, Okami, just to name a few.

 

The problem is that a game is judged by the sum of its parts, not some simplistic, technical, "objective" measure. Any feature, in any game most be asked one simple question, "is this fun?" If it isn't fun, something needs to be done about it. If it is fun, most people will not sit back and try to piece together why it is fun.

 

Sure, Dark Kingdom had great cloth physics... the game is not fun. Gears of War is a great little "pop and shoot" title... but the single player campaign was too short, and it got pretty repetitive.

 

You're saying his list is easily dismissable, yet you're raising a huge contention with it. I don't get it, if the list is ignorant and dismissable, what's the big deal? He thinks that Oblivion is the best game of the (previous) year - for whatever his reasons (obviously Bethesda paid this guy off...). Thank god the year is over! LAWL

[thepixiesrock]

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}>

 

No, it has a focused story line around the PC, just not one that revolves saving the world or the character being the chosen one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So then what we have, in essence, is the set up of an MMORPG, without the other people. I'll agree that you could call the players life in the game a "storyline" but it wouldn't be a flowing storyline. It would just be your character doing quests and oddjobs, and then like saying, "This is the story of Harvey, and ordinary man in an ordinary village. He did oddjobs and quests." And I think a game like that would rely very heavily on the setting, like MMORPG's do.

[Sand]

So then what we have, in essence, is the set up of an MMORPG, without the other people.  I'll agree that you could call the players life in the game a "storyline" but it wouldn't be a flowing storyline.  It would just be your character doing quests and oddjobs, and then like saying, "This is the story of Harvey, and ordinary man in an ordinary village.  He did oddjobs and quests."  And I think a game like that would rely very heavily on the setting, like MMORPG's do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Pixie Stick, you are just being obtuse and purposely trying to egg me on. Not going to work, sorry. You know exactly what I am getting at and it no where near what you are describing.

[thepixiesrock]

No, I don't know what you are getting at, so describe it for me. What is it exactly that you are talking about?

[Sand]

Pixie Stick, you are reasonably intelligent being so pardon me for not believing you. I'm not going to be baited.

Edited January 1, 2007 by Sand

[thepixiesrock]

I'm not baiting you. I really am curious about what you are talking about. I mean, I could be wrong, what you are thinking of could be a fantastic, fun, and revolutionary game.

[thepixiesrock]

If you don't want to give me an example because you don't know, that's fine, but don't use the excuse that I'm baiting you. Unless everytime someone tries to discuss something with you, it's just baiting.

[Slowtrain]

There is no so-called objective way to judge a game.

 

 

I somewhat disagree with that.

 

I do agree that there is no such thing as total objectivity. Every judgement we make wil be tainted by the personal experiences of our lives.

 

However, I do think it is the responsibility of a reviewer to put aside his or her likes and dislikes as much as possible when reviewing a game. It will be impossible to do completely, but the effort should be made. The reason being, obviously, that just because someone doesn't like something or doesnt find it fun does not mean that something is bad or poorly done.

 

A game shoud be judged on how well it works and how well it does what it attempts to do.

 

Some things can be quite objective: Does the game crash a lot? Is it buggy? Is the sound clean? Are load times excessive? Those are pretty straight forward.

 

The tougher things are reviewing the internal game mechanics and trying to answere the question: Does the game work?

 

Keeping with the ES theme of the thread, let's take a quick look at Morrowind and Oblivion as examples in one particular area: encounter difficulty/challenge. How well implemented is it? DOes it work within the apparent intention of the game?

 

Morrowind: Morrowind encouraged the player to go off on her own and explore: loot caves, fight monsters, level up, get better. That was one of the major design goals of Morrowind. Yet, if the player follows that design goal, the actual quests as presented by the main story arc and the guild arcs can quickly become too easy and insignificant because the player rapidly becomes too powerful for the quests. SO here is a broken aspect of the game design that doesn't work. The quest pieces do not fit with the exploration pieces in terms of creating a continuall challenign environment for the player.

 

Oblivion: A lot of players complained about this broken aspect of the game and Bethesda responded by applying the scaling/level list system to the quests as well. ANd for the most part, it pretty much works. Quests are now generally tough no matter how much a player explores on their own. Those two pieces of the game now complement each other. However, looking further, aspects of the scaling system do not fit with the actual lore as presented in the gameworld. In the gameworld of Oblivion, rare metal weapons and armor are considered "rare" The books in the gameworld even mention this repeatedly. Yet, as the game scales its difficulty, run of the mill bandits show uo carrying gear that they couldn't possibly possess if we take the gameworld at the face value with which we are presented. That is a broken aspect to the scaling system therefore. What would have worked better and been less intrusive would have been to level bandits accordingly, but keep them armed with iron and steel weapons with an occaisonal boss having something a tad rarer. They could still a challenge and the gameworld would remain consistent.

 

 

That's just one example obviously, but the attempt is to remove subjective judgements from the review. In this case a reviewer should not be passing judgement on the concept of scaling, only evaluating how well it works in furthering the intentions of the game. Some people are going to like scaling, some people won't. Scaling itself has no impact on whether the game is good or bad.

 

That sort of analysis is a lot more conducive to getting a feel for the game, than saying: scaling sucks, I don't like it.

 

edit: Just want to point out that: a) Scaling obviously isn't the only way to address a challenge problem, but it is what the devs choose and therefore what needs to be reviewed and b) scaling as done in Oblivion does have other downsides than just the weapons/armor issue. I was just picking that as quick example.

Edited January 1, 2007 by CrashGirl

[Slowtrain]

And what is good about Oblivion Crashgirl?

 

The random dungeons of bread and apple chests?

 

The sheer lack of quests that Morrowind had?

 

The ability to be everything in the game?

 

The 'Oblivion' areas that were all the same?

 

I could mention many more things that turned me off the game in a short space of time, but I think you get the drift. In its defence, I will say its a decent FPS with stats. It has nice graphics. Its combat engine is good for an action game.

 

I would like to know, in your opinion, why its a great game. What parts made it brilliant? How did it trump its predesessor and what were the improvements?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am not saying I find Oblivion a perfect game play experience.

 

For example, I do find the ability to "be everything", as you put it, asinine. What is the point of making choices when you select your skills if everythign ends up the same in the end? Morrowind has that same problem as well, and I was hoping it would be corrected in Oblivion. Alas.

 

 

However, we have to be careful here, bceause that it is verging on a subjective judgement on what we like versus dislike.

 

the more important question overall is not about "being everything" but about does the skill system as implemented in Oblivion work? I don't think it does, and one of the reasons is that its pretty much irrelevant what skills you choose as major and what you choose as minor. Some of which ties into the "learn by doing" approach of the skill system in ES games, which is really hard to balance without setting a bunch of really artificial constraints on skill gain which then is totally counter to the intention of creating a more freeform skill system in the first place.

Edited January 1, 2007 by CrashGirl

[Tale]

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.

 

No, it has a focused story line around the PC, just not one that revolves saving the world or the character being the chosen one.

 

So then what we have, in essence, is the set up of an MMORPG, without the other people. I'll agree that you could call the players life in the game a "storyline" but it wouldn't be a flowing storyline. It would just be your character doing quests and oddjobs, and then like saying, "This is the story of Harvey, and ordinary man in an ordinary village. He did oddjobs and quests." And I think a game like that would rely very heavily on the setting, like MMORPG's do.

 

Because he's obviously not talking about odd jobs and just some quests. When he talks about everyday evil, he doesn't mean the toilet overflowing, he means something more mundane than the world is in dire peril.

[thepixiesrock]

For example...?

[Tale]

For example...?

Invasion by barbarian horde of a relatively small group of cities? (this idea ripped from a book)

Sand's mentioned idea of defense of a trade route. Perhaps it has become incredibly overrun with bandits and the only way to stop them is to seek out their leader. But, where?

A lengthy and detailed jaunt into a city's underworld, either as criminal or cop.

etc. etc.

[thepixiesrock]

Would those be the focus of the game, or just examples of part of the game?

[Tale]

Would those be the focus of the game, or just examples of part of the game?

Focus.

 

Personally, I know I'd be interested in a detailed murder mystery using an RPG system. Social skills for evidence gathering would be interesting.

[thepixiesrock]

Would those be the focus of the game, or just examples of part of the game?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Focus.

 

Personally, I know I'd be interested in a detailed murder mystery using an RPG system. Social skills for evidence gathering would be interesting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Alright, that would work, but as I've said, the apeal is in the setting.

 

Invasion by barbarian horde of a relatively small group of cities? (this idea ripped from a book)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So you'd be saving the group of cities from barbarians. You'd be saving the game world from barbarians.

 

Sand's mentioned idea of defense of a trade route.  Perhaps it has become incredibly overrun with bandits and the only way to stop them is to seek out their leader.  But, where?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not sure if you meant that one was supposed to be the main focus of a game. It sounds an awful lot like a quest, and not really enough to be a main focus of a game.

 

A lengthy and detailed jaunt into a city's underworld, either as criminal or cop.

etc. etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I can see how this would work as a main focus of a game with out feeling like the one who is "saving the world"

[Tale]

So you'd be saving the group of cities from barbarians.  You'd be saving the game world from barbarians.

 

There's a difference between saving the entire world from something and just saving your little corner of the world. Maybe not from a gameplay perspective, but from a story perspective, which is what the issue at hand is in regards to.

 

I'm not sure if you meant that one was supposed to be the main focus of a game.  It sounds an awful lot like a quest, and not really enough to be a main focus of a game.

All games start off as a quest. Simple quests like this in other games generally consist of giving the map location and making it so you can waltz right in slaughtering bandits left and right. Having to investigate the bandit menance, finding out who or where their leader is, having to travel several towns over, find allies against the immense criminal organization, and ultimately formulate a plan to bring it down. You assume "bandits" and think "well, they'll just give me a map marker and I can single handedly slaughter them all!" but no. We're talking organized crime here, this would be taking down the mafia. You don't get an easy time.

[thepixiesrock]

If you don't consider saving the game world and saving the entire world as the same thing, then there are plenty of games out there I'm sure that are just like that then.

[Gromnir]

diablo were a pretty popular crpg that had limited character customization options and gameplay were offering little save for an opportunity to kill hordes o' baddies and gather 10075. story? pretty damn shallow. quests? *chuckle* character interactions. HA! list Gromnir's favorite crpgs and diablo ain't gonna make top 10... or 20. regardless, the blizzard guys managed to creates a gameplay formula that were mighty popular with most gamers in spite o' fact that there were little in diablo that Gromnir would wants in a crpg.

 

oblivion reminded Gromnir o' a sandbox version o' diablo. no doubt this is reason why it weren't popular with Gromnir, but were popular with many fans and reviewers.

 

names the number o' game reviewers that gots journalism degree from an ivy league school... or has written reviews for new york times or a similar publication. any fat arsed couch jockey with an internet connection can becomes a game reviewer. you suprised that reviews seems unprofesh-nul ?

 

oblivion is a crpg... says so on box. reviewer likes oblivion. so, oblivion obviously gots all those qualities that makes for a good crpg.

 

reverse is equal bad. just 'cause oblivion not got many qualities that Gromnir believes is integral for making a good crpg not mean that oblivion is a bad game. Gromnir didn't like oblivion, but we didn't like diablo neither. that being said, we can see why some people did like.

 

sidenote: as much as oblivion were not our cup-o'-tea, we is glad that bethesda made it. for how long has developers at places likes obsidian been telling us that makings a really big game just weren't possible nowadays... we started hearing talk o' sub-thirty hour crpgs becoming typical. all of a sudden it seems that bigger games ain't so impossible after all.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[alanschu]

Pixie Stick, you are just being obtuse and purposely trying to egg me on.  Not going to work, sorry.  You know exactly what I am getting at and it no where near what you are describing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wouldn't be so sure he's just baiting you, as I have little idea exactly what you're talking about as well.

 

How do you make a storyline that just revolves around the everyday affairs of a character?

 

 

Some things can be quite objective: Does the game crash a lot? Is it buggy? Is the sound clean? Are load times excessive? Those are pretty straight forward.

 

 

At the same time though, you could argue that these things are bad because they take away from the fun of a game.

 

If a game was still far and away the most fun you had ever played and ever will play, in spite of crashes, bugs, bad sound, and long load times, then I wouldn't be surprised if some would rate it as the best ever.

Edited January 1, 2007 by alanschu

[metadigital]

For example...?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Invasion by barbarian horde of a relatively small group of cities? (this idea ripped from a book)

Sand's mentioned idea of defense of a trade route. Perhaps it has become incredibly overrun with bandits and the only way to stop them is to seek out their leader. But, where?

A lengthy and detailed jaunt into a city's underworld, either as criminal or cop.

etc. etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why isn't that just equivalent to an instance (or several) in an MMORPG, though? How is it different?

[Tale]

For example...?

Invasion by barbarian horde of a relatively small group of cities? (this idea ripped from a book)

Sand's mentioned idea of defense of a trade route. Perhaps it has become incredibly overrun with bandits and the only way to stop them is to seek out their leader. But, where?

A lengthy and detailed jaunt into a city's underworld, either as criminal or cop.

etc. etc.

Why isn't that just equivalent to an instance (or several) in an MMORPG, though? How is it different?

 

It's different the same way that "stopping the King of Shadows from being unleashed across Faerun" or "retrieving your soul from Irenicus" is different. Both these ideas could be an MMO instance if you simply looked at them like that single sentence without looking at the depth that can be obtained in getting to that end.