Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Virtz]

If we were to look at feature meaningfulness based on time spent using them, then Morrowind would be a hiking simulator and Oblivion would be a compass following simulator. Most of Oblivion's content (most notably quests) was geared towards combat. In fact, they've always been in TES. Everyone keeps sending you off to dungeons to get something or kill someone. And the dungeons are always full of generic enemies which keep respawning.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

My view of M&B as a combat-oriented game comes from two facts: Firstly its development. The combat was developed first, it's the core of the game. All the other things you mentioned were just tacked on very late in the development as an afterthought.
Secondly, they're far less important to the game than the combat. Trade? The economy is broken, and what are you going to do with the money anyway? The only things you can buy are more goods (with which you make even more money) and combat equipment. The trade is there only as a means to support your fighting. Diplomacy? Eh, not really much of that in Native. Warband management? Consists of buying different kinds of food and clicking the "upgrade troop" button whenever it becomes available. City management is a complete joke, and side quests are either of the "fetch" variety or serve only to get you into combat. Fact of the matter is, the game is about combat.

They meant a lot to me in gameplay. I wouldn't have played it as long as I did if it weren't for these features. And even looking at them the way you do, they're still a lot more than the games I mentioned had. You cannot avoid combat in any of the games I mentioned. You can in M&B. You can talk all you want that the features don't count or something. They do.

Play some Severance. Each weapon class has some special attacks that can be performed with any weapon of that class, but individual weapons also have their own unique moves.

I don't see how those are perks. Damage modifiers have nothing to do with how the weapon feels, all they affect are the numbers. Yes, some weapons are one handed, some two handed, etc. But all weapons of the same type feel exactly the same. As I said, a mace and a sword have significantly different fighting styles, yet M&B lumps them into "one handed" and treats them as no different.

I just did. You're full of it. In the tutorial, my character picked up a halberd and used it the same way as a handaxe. He used a polearm like a one-handed weapon. On the other hand, he used a bo as if it weighed a ton. Not to mention he used the weapons in fundamentally the same way. Swinging. He even swung a freaking gladius around even though that's a stabbing weapon. The character can't even block without a shield, he just makes this spastic looking parry. So much for that claim of superiority.

And the controls are a whole different level of bad. You complained about mapping inputs to different functions. Well, here if you hold the jump button and happen to nudge the mouse a little, the character jumps sideways. In order to do most attacks you have to press the turning or moving buttons at the same time as the attack button. This might've been ok in times before mouse + keyboard controls caught on and people still tried to play keyboard only. But by today's standards this is horrible.

Because on higher difficulty AI opponents feint more, requiring a greater mastery of the control system. Why am I even having to explain this? You have played the game, right?

We aren't talking about mastery right now. We're talking about learning. I've already given you examples of people who have mastered the control scheme and I gave you an example of someone detached from action games who learned how to use the control scheme. You do not have to play the game at the highest difficulty level to show that you've learned how to use the control scheme. That'd be called mastering and I'm fairly sure the fucknuts who fought for 3 minutes non-stop without shields could easily beat any AI.

Of course it wouldn't work in large scale combat, but there never is any large scale combat in Severance. In this respect it's very much like Oblivion and other games that feature combat as a marginal gameplay element. It's yet another reason why I think M&B is primarily focused on combat.

Oblivion had a "large scale" battle. The one at the big gate was supposed to be some kind of big epic battle, but because the graphics engine sucked (and more people would choke it) and the combat system sucked, it looked terrible with 10-15 people clumsily fighting stuff coming out of the gate and dying because the level-scaling gods abandoned friendly NPCs.

As for realism, refer back to my post about technological versus tactical realism. In reality, you can't just change your mind instantly in the middle of a sword swing the way you can in M&B. Your movements have a certain inertia, which I feel isn't represented very well in M&B. Once you start a motion you are in a sense committed and can't return to a neutral stance instantly. In M&B you can move and attack in any direction as you please, it's as if the bottom half of the body is totally independent of the top half, which of course isn't the case in reality. Severance, unrealistic and gamey as it is, does do a very good job of making you think about timing, positioning, and distance. It's necessary to wait for an opening before you commit yourself and attack.

You can pull back mid-swing. Not instantly, yes. But I'll take surreal pulling back over fighting like a robot any day.

Fair point, that may have been an oversimplification on my part. The combat consist of holding one button and pressing another whenever you see an enemy telegraphing his attack (which they do for about five seconds before actually attacking, and of course a dozen enemies will wait for their turn instead of swarming you all at once) in case of the earlier games, or holding one button and then mashing another to keep a kill streak going in Ass Creed Bro. At which point the combat, for all points and purposes, ends. The animation kinda does go on for a bit, but it's really a foregone conclusion by that point. Complex, that ain't.

Fair enough. But that doesn't invalidate combat presence and use in the game.

That's because I've never played that series, since I'm not a child and thus don't own a console.

Neither do I (own a console). DW6 got ported to PC.

Besides that last remark (why can I see in dungeons with no torches?), I'll agree that it's possible and concede that point. But more importantly, is there any sort of incentive to avoiding combat (other than metagame stuff like roleplaying)? I don't think I remember picking a single pocket in all the time I've played, and the enemies wear all the good stuff anyway.

Wait, what? Roleplaying is metagame stuff now? How do you figure that? Oblivion is an RPG. You do know what that acronym means, right? Asking if there's any incentive to do stuff other than to roleplay in a roleplaying game is like asking if there's any incentive to drive around in cars in Need for Speed other than racing.

There's just you and the computer. And the computer doesn't care. The thing about the term game is that it implies some rules being applied to what otherwise would be a toy. A role-playing game is supposed to apply some rules to the role-playing aspect (hence the stats and other such RPG aspects making you interact with the world accordingly to your role). If you were playing with real players, then they could react to your dynamic role-playing somehow. There aren't, though. Nothing in the game world will react to you being in role or not.

[Ivefan]

Oblivion is an RPG.

Firstly, I only read the last page, so sorry if I missed a point somewhere.
In my opinion there isn't many games that should be called RPG, as any game where you can change stats or traits, no matter how minuscule the change is, gets branded RPG.
Oblivion is not a game that tells an epic adventure and is more of a sandbox where your mind makes up the tale, so if you dont make that tale its just a question of in what manner you are going to get items or find new places.
I played Morrowind that way and it was fun to simply go out in the world and find dungeons and the treasures within. Perhaps you could argument that I was playing a treasure hunter or the like but I never imagined that I was playing some character.

You say that oblivion isn't a combat oriented game? There isn't much else to do. Conversations is just as meaningful as in old NES rpgs. You can go around stealing things or prancing around in the countryside looking at trees and running from wolves.
Really, you either sneak or kill stuff(or get them killed)

[LoSboccacc]

so dwarf fortress is a menu oriented game? and simcity is a left button clicking oriented game?

combat it's just a mean. and the minor part in oblivion. if you played it fighting every time you weren't idle, that's ok, that's your way. but that's not the grit and meat of oblivion.

that would be like saying that the infrared commands are the primary part of television entertainment. yes, they are, in a certain twisted sense. but it's just not that way.

[Sordid]

If we were to look at feature meaningfulness based on time spent using them, then Morrowind would be a hiking simulator and Oblivion would be a compass following simulator. Most of Oblivion's content (most notably quests) was geared towards combat. In fact, they've always been in TES. Everyone keeps sending you off to dungeons to get something or kill someone. And the dungeons are always full of generic enemies which keep respawning.

Whaddya know...

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

They meant a lot to me in gameplay. I wouldn't have played it as long as I did if it weren't for these features. And even looking at them the way you do, they're still a lot more than the games I mentioned had. You cannot avoid combat in any of the games I mentioned. You can in M&B. You can talk all you want that the features don't count or something. They do.

I didn't say they don't count, I said they're not the main focus. Not the same thing.

I just did. You're full of it. In the tutorial, my character picked up a halberd and used it the same way as a handaxe. He used a polearm like a one-handed weapon. On the other hand, he used a bo as if it weighed a ton. Not to mention he used the weapons in fundamentally the same way. Swinging. He even swung a freaking gladius around even though that's a stabbing weapon.

Y'know, I never actually played the tutorial. You say "he" used a bo as if it weighed a ton. That's because the bo is the rogue's weapon, only she can use it effectively. The other characters aren't proficient with it and subsequently their use of it is awkward at best. As for swinging the gladius, does it really matter? Do you see any legionaries in the game? Just pretend that it's called "sword".

The character can't even block without a shield, he just makes this spastic looking parry. So much for that claim of superiority.

Yes, surprisingly enough you need to time your parry (remember when I said this game is all about timing?). I'm sorry that the game doesn't reach M&B's level of quality, particularly in simulating the well-known swordfighting technique of awkwardly holding your sword diagonally in front of yourself to form an impenetrable shield that completely protects you from people trying to stab you with spears. I concede that M&B's take on that is much more realistic.

And the controls are a whole different level of bad. You complained about mapping inputs to different functions. Well, here if you hold the jump button and happen to nudge the mouse a little, the character jumps sideways. In order to do most attacks you have to press the turning or moving buttons at the same time as the attack button. This might've been ok in times before mouse + keyboard controls caught on and people still tried to play keyboard only. But by today's standards this is horrible.

By today's standards, yes. You're forgetting that the game is ten years old (and unfinished, sadly).

We aren't talking about mastery right now. We're talking about learning. I've already given you examples of people who have mastered the control scheme and I gave you an example of someone detached from action games who learned how to use the control scheme. You do not have to play the game at the highest difficulty level to show that you've learned how to use the control scheme. That'd be called mastering and I'm fairly sure the fucknuts who fought for 3 minutes non-stop without shields could easily beat any AI.

I'd make the point about fighting the opponents rather than the controls again, but it seems like we're going in circles on this one.

Oblivion had a "large scale" battle. The one at the big gate was supposed to be some kind of big epic battle, but because the graphics engine sucked (and more people would choke it) and the combat system sucked, it looked terrible with 10-15 people clumsily fighting stuff coming out of the gate and dying because the level-scaling gods abandoned friendly NPCs.

That 'large' battle was the climax of the story, in M&B you have such battles every day.

You can pull back mid-swing. Not instantly, yes. But I'll take surreal pulling back over fighting like a robot any day.

If you try to pull back mid-swing all you'll do is lose your balance. I agree that Severance is very exaggerated in this regard (especially the skeletons and their three-part combos), but I don't think that's such a bad thing.

Fair enough. But that doesn't invalidate combat presence and use in the game.

I don't think the presence of combat in Ass Creed is all that great, frankly. I guess it comes down to playstyle. Sure, you can just slaughter your way to your target if you want to, but I prefer to assassinate quietly and then run for it. There aren't that many missions that outright require you to fight large numbers of enemies. Even that one mission in Ass Creed Bro where you have to kill twenty soldiers specifically prohibits you from doing so in an open fight. The biggest unavoidable fight that I recall was at the end of Ass Creed 1, and that was universally panned by critics and players alike.

Neither do I (own a console). DW6 got ported to PC.

Huh, must've missed that. Might give it a shot.

There's just you and the computer. And the computer doesn't care. The thing about the term game is that it implies some rules being applied to what otherwise would be a toy. A role-playing game is supposed to apply some rules to the role-playing aspect (hence the stats and other such RPG aspects making you interact with the world accordingly to your role). If you were playing with real players, then they could react to your dynamic role-playing somehow. There aren't, though. Nothing in the game world will react to you being in role or not.

That's true only in this particular RPG. The philosophy behind TES has always been "be who you want to be, go where you want to go". If you want to be a munchkin, then sure, you can. You can also limit yourself on purpose. I find it odd that a DF player doesn't appreciate the value of self-imposed challenges.

[Shadowlord]

Asscreed's wallcliming is almost entirely automated
Asscreed is not about wallclimbing and freerunning?

(or free running in the case of Asscreed)
Asscreed for example

Ass Creed

I award you the Unfed Troll of the Month badge.

[Virtz]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

They meant a lot to me in gameplay. I wouldn't have played it as long as I did if it weren't for these features. And even looking at them the way you do, they're still a lot more than the games I mentioned had. You cannot avoid combat in any of the games I mentioned. You can in M&B. You can talk all you want that the features don't count or something. They do.

I didn't say they don't count, I said they're not the main focus. Not the same thing.

Still, I can avoid this "core" of the game entirely and play as a cowardly trader.

Y'know, I never actually played the tutorial. You say "he" used a bo as if it weighed a ton. That's because the bo is the rogue's weapon, only she can use it effectively. The other characters aren't proficient with it and subsequently their use of it is awkward at best. As for swinging the gladius, does it really matter? Do you see any legionaries in the game? Just pretend that it's called "sword".

I went through the tutorial just to get the gist of the control system without missing anything. It was nice enough to reward me with a selection of weapons to test. And the point is they didn't have this plethora of combat styles you claimed it did. It missed out on something as obvious as a gladius or a halberd. It did have a two-handed sword work Conan style, though. But it was all just a bunch of swings with no variance in animation between gladius, handaxe and halberd. And the problem with the bo is that he used it like a grandma, like the end of that bo was heavy beyond imagining.

Yes, surprisingly enough you need to time your parry (remember when I said this game is all about timing?). I'm sorry that the game doesn't reach M&B's level of quality, particularly in simulating the well-known swordfighting technique of awkwardly holding your sword diagonally in front of yourself to form an impenetrable shield that completely protects you from people trying to stab you with spears. I concede that M&B's take on that is much more realistic.

That's actually supposed to be parrying you're doing against thrust attacks. I'm pretty sure the character does move the blade upwards as you "block".

By today's standards, yes. You're forgetting that the game is ten years old (and unfinished, sadly).

I'm unfamiliar with its development cycle, but can't argue with age.

That 'large' battle was the climax of the story, in M&B you have such battles every day.

And it looked dreadful despite being the climax of the main quest.

I don't think the presence of combat in Ass Creed is all that great, frankly. I guess it comes down to playstyle. Sure, you can just slaughter your way to your target if you want to, but I prefer to assassinate quietly and then run for it. There aren't that many missions that outright require you to fight large numbers of enemies. Even that one mission in Ass Creed Bro where you have to kill twenty soldiers specifically prohibits you from doing so in an open fight. The biggest unavoidable fight that I recall was at the end of Ass Creed 1, and that was universally panned by critics and players alike.

The most hectic fight in ACB is actually defending the mercenary keep. There are around 10 allies and around 20-30 enemies at a time, you're supposed to close the gates and even all your brotherhood assassins at once do little to ease the battle. EDIT: Well, ok, I lied. The brotherhood assassins do a lot to help. In fact I thought it'd be impossible to do without them.

That's true only in this particular RPG. The philosophy behind TES has always been "be who you want to be, go where you want to go". If you want to be a munchkin, then sure, you can. You can also limit yourself on purpose. I find it odd that a DF player doesn't appreciate the value of self-imposed challenges.

Role-playing in Oblivion is not really a self-imposed challenge though. It's self-imposed something, but it ain't a challenge. I mean, what do you call pretending to be a guard and standing there at Cheydinhal's keep entrance while the other guard obliviously stares at you? If Oblivion's wiki is to be trusted, that's something people actually do for "role-playing". You can't really "role-play" anything other than a hero without the world's believability collapsing around you.

And I'd say Daggerfall had the right idea for imposing challenges. Actual game mechanic related disadvantages in return for greater XP rates or other game mechanic advantages.

[Ivefan]

so dwarf fortress is a menu oriented game? and simcity is a left button clicking oriented game?

And by that comparison oblivion is a console control oriented game, what your point?

combat it's just a mean. and the minor part in oblivion. if you played it fighting every time you weren't idle, that's ok, that's your way. but that's not the grit and meat of oblivion.

You are a mage, fighter, rogue or a mix of it.
Doing quests involves using spells, sneaking or bashing faces in.
Exploring involves... nothing really, just run in whatever direction and watch the trees. Any other discoveries mostly involves hostiles so back to spells, sneaking or bashing faces in.
In towns? Shopping, Stealing, Stop right there, criminal scum, Listening to people(Not talking, because nothing you say matters and they don't really have anything to say anyways.)

I'm sorry, what is the "grit and meat of oblivion." then?
Oh, on "if you played it fighting every time you weren't idle", If you are idle you're not playing the game.

[LoSboccacc]

so dwarf fortress is a menu oriented game? and simcity is a left button clicking oriented game?

And by that comparison oblivion is a console control oriented game, what your point?

was not a point. was a counter argument to the silly statement that oblivion focus is "obviously combat".

[PTTG??]

This is completely unproductive. Discuss Skyrim and/or take this to another thread.

[LoSboccacc]

if you want to hear a point, read the point of the actual executive producer on what oblivion it's all about:

http://www.elderscrolls.com/community/rpg-next-generation/

that is, "Live another life, in another world", focusing on huge sidequests and npc and dialogs and tons of little touch in the hugeness of the world for no real other reason that "You need a certain amount of size and choices so that experience is actually meaningful."

but meh, don't let fact comes into the way of your pretty reasoning that 'I like to do fighter, I fight in oblivion, oblivion is about combat'

[Ivefan]

This is completely unproductive. Discuss Skyrim and/or take this to another thread.

Yes It is rather off-topic.

if you want to hear a point, read the point of the actual executive producer on what oblivion it's all about:

http://www.elderscrolls.com/community/rpg-next-generation/

that is, "Live another life, in another world", focusing on huge sidequests and npc and dialogs and tons of little touch in the hugeness of the world for no real other reason that "You need a certain amount of size and choices so that experience is actually meaningful."

but meh, don't let fact comes into the way of your pretty reasoning that 'I like to do fighter, I fight in oblivion, oblivion is about combat'

Oh yay, PR.
Live another life, in another world as a mage/fighter/rogue adventurer with all the npcs treating you the same.
Oblivion is a sandbox world where all quests are linear. Dialogues are bland and offer no options.
Oblivion boils down to You, Your objective and the hostiles in between. All items you have/find will help you in combat in someway, Alchemy makes potions to help you, enchanting makes you more effective and so on. Whatever you do(except some things in town), there is combat. Not necessarily melee but as in "hostiles want to harm you, what do you do?"

[Sensei]

Ever since Dungeons and Dragons western RPG's have been colored in the direction of combat.

For example, and you could do this with a lot of games, let's take a look at the character stats in oblivion:

Spoiler: ATTRIBUTES: (click to show/hide)

-Helps kill things:
Agility
Endurance
Strength
Willpower
Intelligence

-Helps kill and do other things:
Speed

-Doesn't help kill things:
Personality

Spoiler: SKILLS: (click to show/hide)

-Helps kill things:
Blade
Block
Blunt
Hand-to-hand
Heavy Armor
Light Armor
Armor
Marksman
Illusion
Conjuration
Mysticism
Destruction

-Can help kill and do other things:
Sneak
Alchemy

-Doesn't help kill things:
Security
Merchantile
Speechcraft

And that's not even getting started on quests.

Besides, if you want non-combat, there's far better games for it.

Edit: Hrm, kinda jinja'd by Ivefan. But my point stands.

[Sordid]

Ass Creed

I award you the Unfed Troll of the Month badge.

What? That's a common nickname for the game. Even Yahtzee uses it. C'mon, it's just asking for it.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Still, I can avoid this "core" of the game entirely and play as a cowardly trader.

Yeah, but then you miss out on 95% of it. Like I said, trade is just ancillary to combat, apart from goods the only thing you can buy is combat gear. There are better trading games out there.

I went through the tutorial just to get the gist of the control system without missing anything. It was nice enough to reward me with a selection of weapons to test. And the point is they didn't have this plethora of combat styles you claimed it did. It missed out on something as obvious as a gladius or a halberd. It did have a two-handed sword work Conan style, though. But it was all just a bunch of swings with no variance in animation between gladius, handaxe and halberd. And the problem with the bo is that he used it like a grandma, like the end of that bo was heavy beyond imagining.

You need to be a certain level to be able to use the special attacks. I'm guessing the tutorial gives you a lvl 1 character, which pretty much means you can't do shit.

That's actually supposed to be parrying you're doing against thrust attacks. I'm pretty sure the character does move the blade upwards as you "block".

Nope, in M&B and in Warband the block animations are completely static. But animations are just cosmetic, my point is that it's a forcefield. The M&B combat system is very dynamic, your character mirrors the motions you do with the mouse. But to parry a spear thrust you'd have to actively move your sword/mouse. That the character does nothing is not much of a problem, that the player does nothing is much worse. You can just sit there holding the button and you'll be completely invincible, the spearman will be unable to harm you. With other opponents the system works fine, because they'll just attack from a different direction, so you do have to constnatly change your block direction. But a spearman only has one attack, so the whole system just falls apart.

And it looked dreadful despite being the climax of the main quest.

Well yes, it did. But my point was that in Oblivion, the big battle was a special occasion. In M&B, big battles are an everyday occurrence.

The most hectic fight in ACB is actually defending the mercenary keep. There are around 10 allies and around 20-30 enemies at a time, you're supposed to close the gates and even all your brotherhood assassins at once do little to ease the battle. EDIT: Well, ok, I lied. The brotherhood assassins do a lot to help. In fact I thought it'd be impossible to do without them.

Yeah, that fight is a breeze. By that point I had all my girls trained up to Assassino rank, so I just plonked down a smoke bomb by each gate to keep enemies off my back while I closed it, then called in my kill squad and watched the mayhem. Didn't have to lift a finger.

Role-playing in Oblivion is not really a self-imposed challenge though. It's self-imposed something, but it ain't a challenge. I mean, what do you call pretending to be a guard and standing there at Cheydinhal's keep entrance while the other guard obliviously stares at you? If Oblivion's wiki is to be trusted, that's something people actually do for "role-playing". You can't really "role-play" anything other than a hero without the world's believability collapsing around you.

Well of course you're going to roleplay a hero. I guess the TES motto is "be whichever kind of hero you want to be", then. But it's not so much what you try to do, it's more about how you go about it - muscle, brains, stealth... Sure, you can mix it up and munchkin the hell out of it until you're invincible, but you can also limit yourself. I've found that makes the game a lot more fun.

And I'd say Daggerfall had the right idea for imposing challenges. Actual game mechanic related disadvantages in return for greater XP rates or other game mechanic advantages.

Yeah, that was genius. But it was maybe a bit too free-form, too arbitrary. Why exactly should a perfectly normal human being for example take damage in sunlight or holy places? Doesn't really make much sense to give you that option.

[Lysabild]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

That's actually supposed to be parrying you're doing against thrust attacks. I'm pretty sure the character does move the blade upwards as you "block".

Nope, in M&B and in Warband the block animations are completely static. But animations are just cosmetic, my point is that it's a forcefield. The M&B combat system is very dynamic, your character mirrors the motions you do with the mouse. But to parry a spear thrust you'd have to actively move your sword/mouse. That the character does nothing is not much of a problem, that the player does nothing is much worse. You can just sit there holding the button and you'll be completely invincible, the spearman will be unable to harm you. With other opponents the system works fine, because they'll just attack from a different direction, so you do have to constnatly change your block direction. But a spearman only has one attack, so the whole system just falls apart.

You're wrong, Animations aren't static, spear man can attack in more directions if they don't have a shield and honestly, an opponent who can only trust isn't hard to parry in real life. Did you really play this? I've been killed by a guy with a spear only with an axe and a shield and I'm not bad. Eitherway by circling, feinting, good feet work even a thrust can get in.

[Sordid]

You're wrong, Animations aren't static, spear man can attack in more directions if they don't have a shield and honestly, an opponent who can only trust isn't hard to parry in real life. Did you really play this? I've been killed by a guy with a spear only with an axe and a shield and I'm not bad. Eitherway by circling, feinting, good feet work even a thrust can get in.

If you'd been paying attention, you'd know I don't play multiplayer and am therefore talking about AI opponents.
And yes, the animations are static. There's no parrying, the only movement is from being struck by the attacker.