The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion

There is a definite mental connection between the strike on an opponent as you see it play out in the first-person. However, all you do is basically the same thing over and over and over. The only consideration you have to make is that swiping too fast will wipe out your fatigue.

Morrowind's combat did suck. It was essentially the same kind of system, and while Oblivion has improved somewhat in terms of visual and sound, the mechanic has remained unchanged. When compared to combination-oriented melee like that in Gothic, Oblivion's combat mechanic is pitiful. Oblivion is also unplayable in 3rd Person, because it's impossible to accurately determine where your blows will land. I'm not going to make a comparison to turn-based combat, because action-oriented games aren't about that, yet there's no denying that the combat in Oblivion could've been done in a much more engaging manner.

Yes, the game has flaws. Tons of flaws. Inexcusable flaws for a four year development time. With lazy programmers, ineffective QA, and Howler Monkeys for an art team, it's a wonder this game is any fun at all. I've seen somebody describe the game as "postcard pretty." It's very apt, seeing as how soil erosion and foliage appears to have been given a higher priority than character faces that don't look like they've been beaten with the ugly stick.

People become so enraptured with the open-endedness of the game that they overlook how much shit it's covered in.

Quote:

I think I already did, but thanks for giving me permission!

You're welcome.

FELIPE NO

Fucking Oblivion. Anyone else having any quest-halting glitches? I had one in the main story that took about five hours to get it back on track since one of the NPCs got stuck in a river. And now I just found out I will never be able to do the Mage Guild quest because the Cheydinhal recommendation got glitched and I'll never be able to get the ring from the well. What a joke.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

It wasn't really "member-moderating", it was just a question/remark. Point taken, though, I suppose. Just seemed like an awfully large wall of text and a link might have been easier for people who don't want to wade through it to read newer posts. I didn't mean any offense, really.

How ya doing, buddy?

Brady the fact that you think the combat is basically doing the same thing over and over makes your whole post unecessary jargon.

I suggest reading the manual on combat or something.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

But BZ... it is.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by BZ

Brady the fact that you think the combat is basically doing the same thing over and over makes your whole post unecessary jargon.

I suggest reading the manual on combat or something.

Alright, I'm gonna suspend my disbelief here for a second and assume you're not an idiot. What does the manual say about melee combat?

Originally Posted by Verbatim

Melee Attacks
There are two types of attacks. Basic Attacks and Power Attacks. Basic Attacks are quick, but do less damage. Power attacks are slow, but do more damage. To make a Basic Attack, click and release the Left Mouse Button. To make a Power Attack, click and hold the Left Mouse Button. Use the W, A, S and D keys to perform different Power Attacks.

Wee. So basically, as I mentioned before, your only real concern involving combat is that swiping your weapon really fast wipes out your fatigue, because chances are that the amount of damage you inflict with a power attack will kill your opponent before one's fatigue gets too low in correlation to the amount of time between swings. The only reason you really ever use fast attacks is in order to train up your weapons skills, if in fact it does do that faster, and the weapon skills gain in amount of times you hit things instead of the amount of damage you've inflicted.

There is no discernable difference between the Blade and Blunt skills. There is, but it adds to that whole "imbalance" issue. (forgive the unnecessary jargon) The power attacks using blunt weapons and blade weapons are exactly the same. Being master in blade, or master in blunt, still has the same effect for a forward power attack. The difference, then, is that blade weapons, which have a much wider range of weapons from light blades to claymores, have a selection between reach and light weight, while Blunt weapons have no honest to God discernable difference between Hammers and Axes, besides the fact that it's more easy to pretend you're Conan with an axe. If there is a difference, like say if atronauchs were weak against blunt, it sure as Hell isn't documented in the manual. There's no real reason to select the Blunt skill, other than the fact that you simply want to have an axe or mace "just because."

The Power Attacks system is also broken. I have to sidestep to do a disarming attack? lolok I'll just sidestep like some kinda retard every time I attack. Then there's backwards power attacks, which more often than not causes me to swing too shallow in relation to my opponent, and the forward dash attacks, which more often than not cause one to either overshoot the opponent due to the game's limited hit range, or too easily close a humongous distance.

Imbalanced, pointless, unnecessary jargon.

Quote:

I didn't mean any offense, really.

None taken.

How ya doing, buddy?

I haven't been able to get into the whole soul gems aspect, but if Morrowind is any indicator, you'll have to use the Soul Trap spell to charge any of your soul gems. I don't know whether it charges the appropriately sized gem first in relation to the soul quality or what, but you might want to invest some points into Mysticism.

Quote:

Actually Badylama, there is a large difference; namely, the absence of any die casting in determining whether your attack would even [i]hit[/hit] the target.

Right, so it's even more simplistic and less abstracted. It probably works in the game's favor to actually have a skill-based combat system as opposed to attempting a twitch-based orientation with an abstracted combat system. That is a strike against Oblivion, however, in its billing itself as an RPG.

I also have to admit that I'm playing the PC version, and am missing out on the Rumble experience in favor of a more accurate control scheme. However, simply having the controller rumble with every weapon strike is no excuse for simplistic combat.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Yeah, that was probably 95% of the problem with the game in most people's opinion. You are the first person I have honestly ever seen who thinks it was better off with die rolls. (nothing like starting a non combat oriented character and missing mud crabs and rats at point blank range, eh?) The game has plenty of issues IMO but the overall combat isn't really one of them.

Most of the issues I had with the game have been fixed with mods anyway so I've lost the desire to complain. It was a step up from Morrowind and it was enjoyable. Maybe not the massive step some people figured it would be but a step up nonetheless.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

It works the way it always has. WASD for movement, and the left-mouse button for attacks. The way God intended it to be. Spells and items can be bound to keys 1-9, so I suppose that's something the PC version has on the 360.

Quote:

Well, whoever said combat should be abstract?

Role Playing Games. That your attacks are based on a die roll is a part of a roleplaying experience. As your character's stats and abilities increase over time, so does the chances of gaining a succesful attack roll. What use is there, then, in a system where increasing your weapon skill only raises its attack damage by an increadibly low scale?

I already said that having the weapon automatically connect is a good thing considering Oblivion's game mechanic. I'm just saying that it lends the game more towards an Action-Adventure than an honest-to-God RPG.

Quote:

Most of the issues I had with the game have been fixed with mods anyway so I've lost the desire to complain.

"It's fine if the developers are lazy, we'll just let the modders pick up the slack for their bullshit and everything is honky dory."

This is the same thing that happened with Neverwinter Nights, and the end result is that what you payed for sucked.

Most amazing jew boots

A die is still rolled, IIRC.

The only difference between Morrowind and Oblivion in that respect is not the chance to hit, but the damage done.

Of course, this is going off of memory when I'm not running at 100%, so... I dunno.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

"It's fine if the developers are lazy, we'll just let the modders pick up the slack for their bullshit and everything is honky dory."

This is the same thing that happened with Neverwinter Nights, and the end result is that what you payed for sucked.

Well, what exactly IS the point of modding then? Lord knows pretty much every game I have ever played for the PC has ended up better with usermods, so why is exactly that you feel the need to single out Oblivion? The bare bones Morrowind experience sucked, without user fixes and mods; vampire masquerades sucked. NWN was never meant to be awesome but without usermods, it of coursed sucked. Really, though, the campaigns were just there to showcase what could be done. It was basically a game meant to "make your own adventure" or what-have-you so I try not to judge it too harshly.

Oblivion is no where near as barren as NWN was of good content, either. It only took a few mods to make the game an enjoyable experience. It could take over 10 or 20 mods for Morrowind to make it even close to bearable. So in that regard, Oblivion was obviously a step up from Morrowind. At the very least it didn't suck complete ass right out of the package.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I think dice rolling is just an archaic tradition that's unnecessary in most recent games. It's a very poor way of simulating the chance of getting something right, which although might be useful in table top gaming, isn't needed in video games.

Back when consoles and PCs were physically unable to show the details of combat, faking it with random number generation was the only way to do it. I'm positive that if they had the means, developers of classic RPGs like Ultima would definitely want the player to have more control over combat. After all, if you're able to roleplay your character in combat (in a skill based combat system), then that definitely reflects your character more accurately than a number added on to a dice roll.

I'm curious, Brady, what games would you consider true RPGs? Quoting your journal entry, "the player is given no real option concerning his role as a positive or negative influence on Cyrodiil and Tamriel" is your main reason for the game not being a role playing game.

That's actually pretty limiting in what's actually considered an RPG, isn't it? This automatically rules out basically any console RPG and almost any non-Fallout PC RPG. I don't entirely disagree with you on this, mind you, but it seems like the definition of a role playing game is fairly different to you than it is to most gamers.

How ya doing, buddy?

Relying on user input to make one's product an enjoyable experience for one's customers is a step back. Half-Life was already a great game that was made greater by a modding community. The developer made the effort to create an enjoyable experience for the user before they thought of making a customizeable one.

In this case, we have the opposite occurring. Had Bethesda's team honestly wanted to make a great experience for their customers, they wouldn't have implemented such shoddy design that had to be corrected (within a fucking month) by users with enough time and deidication to pick up their slack. This is never a step forward, it's providing an inferior product in the idea that your users will make it enjoyable. That's highly irresponsible, and shady.

Game developers don't exist to make game engines, they exist to make games. I payed for a game with a developer's kit bundled with it, not the other way around.

Oblivion has content, yes, but none of that content is followed up upon in any meaningful way, because the overall design of the game means that the player only receives a payoff in the form of virtual baubles, and what his imagination can dream up. There is no personal investment in a game like this, because there is no discernable effect on the gameworld outside of dead NPCs, and access to more baubles, and the player has no emotional ties to any of the NPCs because the nature of the dialogue mechanic means that he is incapable of developing a relationship with them.

While I was accomplishing my Dark Brotherhood quests, I began seeing the world as my player character would have seen it. I thought of how the player character would have written down journal entries to describe his situations. Then I thought, why do I have to imagine this? Why isn't this a part of the game? The way the player character interacts with the world around him, he could be as amoral as fucking possible, and there are no negative repurcussions outside of whether or not one chooses to pay a fine, one that tops off by the way at 1000 septims a murder.

That was my one big problem with Gothic 2. No matter how the player character interacts with the NPCs, the player character always says dialogue and performs actions that make him seem like an amoral jerk. It's a deceptive aspect of the game's storytelling, but one that can be ultimately forgiven because the game delivered on so many levels.

The same cannot be said for Oblivion. There is fault after fault after fault, and shooing them away by saying that "the modders can make it better" in no way counters my argument that the game sucks, and that Bethesda is delivering an inferior product by creating lazy design and making poor business practices. Doing so is a disservice to the developers that actually put effort into making their games fun to play, and creates a negative backlash in the industry, because supporting these measures is what hurts the nature of the market.

Also, as an aside, how exactly did Vampire suck? Obvious puns aside, I'd love to hear what your thoughts are, because at the present, not only does your statement lack any merit to the discussion at hand, but it is in no way an argument.

Edit: Heh, wow. Got very involved there. I'll have to get to your post later, NES, but suffice it to say that I think you're very very wrong.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Also, as an aside, how exactly did Vampire suck? Obvious puns aside, I'd love to hear what your thoughts are, because at the present, not only does your statement lack any merit to the discussion at hand, but it is in no way an argument.

Whew, long post. Anyway, Masquerades was littered with game destroying bugs that the official patches never rectified. Without user fixes the game wouldn't have even really been playable start to finish. My point is, really, at least Oblivion isn't like that. I'll get to the rest later since I'm a little busy on the phone and just wanted to make sure you understood that point. I'll add more in a little while.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Quote:

It works the way it always has. WASD for movement, and the left-mouse button for attacks. The way God intended it to be. Spells and items can be bound to keys 1-9, so I suppose that's something the PC version has on the 360.

Not that it really matters, but I just want to say the 360 version has "hotkeys" as well. In fact, it is much easier to use over a keyboard due to the fact that they are mapped to the directional pad.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Quote:

Whew, long post. Anyway, Masquerades was littered with game destroying bugs that the official patches never rectified. Without user fixes the game wouldn't have even really been playable start to finish. My point is, really, at least Oblivion isn't like that. I'll get to the rest later since I'm a little busy on the phone and just wanted to make sure you understood that point. I'll add more in a little while.

That doesn't mean that the actual game sucked, however. Troika was also incapable of properly supporting the game as well, because they sort of went belly-up after its failure. Bugs can be fixed, but shitty design is forever. The prospect of user-side mods making Oblivion "better" just means that you've made an awful game more tolerable. A banking system is cool and all, but it doesn't change the overall game mechanic.

Quote:

I think dice rolling is just an archaic tradition that's unnecessary in most recent games. It's a very poor way of simulating the chance of getting something right, which although might be useful in table top gaming, isn't needed in video games.

I highly beg to differ. Die rolls are the most accurate means of determining action success for an RPG, or is it that you don't understand the basic idea behind a role playing game?

Computers are capable of calculating the rolls for die sides in the hundreds of thousands. The mathematical quotient is close enough to be considered relistic, not to mention that the chance for success has to take multiple factors into account.

Let's say I'm trying to disarm a bomb. There's a red wire, a blue wire, and a green wire. Assuming the player character hasn't had any experience leading up to the bomb, he has a single dialogue choice [put your hand over your eyes and cut a wire]. There are three wires, so the basic chance to disarm the bomb is 33.3333%. If, however, the player has a high Traps skill, he can elect to make a die roll to determine his success in disarming the bomb. If the traps skill gives him a 45% chance of disarming the bomb, it's better than the former. The die roll is then made, and if the computer comes up with a factor higher than 65, then the player succesfully disarms the bomb. Mathematically speaking, the probability of the player character disarming the bomb is 1 in every 2.1 times.

This is as good as it gets for roleplaying. What happens when you roleplay, is that you play a game in which the player makes all of the decisions for the player character, but isn't actually playing the character. All aspects of the game are determined from the perspective of the player character, since if the player is allowed to make input into a dialogue tree from his own personal experience, then he is no longer roleplaying. A character with a low intelligence isn't going to be able to debate the finer aspects of existentialism with an urban elite, and win that NPC's respect and trust in the process, despite what the player is aware of.

This goes back to the bomb example. Let's say the player character has had an interaction beforehand with the guy who made the bomb. Through dialogue, the player character could have learned that the bomb designer had an aversion to the color blue. Using that information, the player character could infer that blue is the wrong wire, which increases the base chance of success to 50%. Even better yet, let's say the player character found a manual for constructing bombs in the NPC's abode. In that manual all of the examples use the red wire as the trigger wire. Since the NPC isn't too bright, and the bomb is designed exactly as it is in the manual, the player character may determine that he would use the red wire and follow the book to the letter. Going even deeper into these aspects, the ability of the player character to determine these facts can be based on a certain minimal intelligence quotient. A character whose intelligence is too low won't understand the manual, or a character with a high perception would notice that the manual has an overabundance of red wire usage.

What the player is aware of already is irrelevant. Just because the player is aware of the manual doesn't mean that the player character is. This is the cornerstone of RPG design, in that all aspects of the game are determined by the player character's design, and in the player's control over combat, his ability to tactically execute. Other factors, such as the aforementioned morality determinants can create a situation where the player can roleplay his player character's impact on the game world. A game like Oblivion, in which too many aspects of the player character's interaction is left up to the perceptions and skills of the player, as well as a lack of any meaningful NPC interaction and social impact, keeps the game from being an honest-to-God RPG.

I'll have to go into detail about this later, but a list of true RPGs that I've played is as follows: Ultima series, Fallout 1 & 2, Planescape: Torment, Baldurs Gate, KOTOR and KOTOR II, Arcanum: Of Steamwork and Magick Obscura (a phenomenal roleplaying game hampered by sub-par combat), The Temple of Elemental Evil, and Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines.

It's not as if the proper definition of an RPG only applies to a limited amount of games, it's just that the implementation of its model doesn't apply to a vast amount of games that bill themselves as RPGs, despite having absolutely zero aspects of roleplaying.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Let's say I'm trying to disarm a bomb.

Good example. I can't say much against it, because it's entirely true for that type of skill.

My main complaint is with skills that should be intuitive to a character. Say I create a fighter type character. He's not just some peasant who suddenly said "I think I'll become an adventuring warrior." There's some kind of background to him that made him follow the path. He's faught against others and is reasonably skilled in combat, and he's proficient with tools and skills that apply to his lifestyle.

We're in game now, and he runs into an angry goblin. Game wise, our hero will roll a die, add a small bonus, and compare it to the goblin's armor class. He's been swinging swords ever since he was a kid, and there's no question that he can hit a mere goblin without much effort. But the way the dice work, he adds his small attack bonus of +2 if he's a low level character to a pathetic roll like a 2. Against the goblin's armor class of 10, he misses. Alright. Keep in mind, though, that his attack total is 4 before even comparing it to the goblin's armor class of 10.

Take a similar combat situation, only we're now playing a geriatric wizard. He has a low strength, and has overall much less experience in weapons than our young hero. He rolls a die to attack the same goblin and gets a 16. Even though his attack bonus has degenerated to -5 in his old age, the attack is still enough to hit the goblin.

This is my main issue with dice rolling. In my opinion, a pathetic old man with little combat experience should not be able to fight on the same ground as a trained fighter in any situation. Yeah, I know the fighter will obviously have more health, be able to swing harder, and on average will have more hits because of his attack bonus. The fact remains, though, that depending on how the dice roll, the old wizard could potentially beat him in a one on one sword fight.

Quote:

I'll have to go into detail about this later, but a list of true RPGs that I've played is as follows: Ultima series, Fallout 1 & 2, Planescape: Torment, Baldurs Gate, KOTOR and KOTOR II, Arcanum: Of Steamwork and Magick Obscura (a phenomenal roleplaying game hampered by sub-par combat), The Temple of Elemental Evil, and Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines.

I've played or at least a portion of the games in that list, but I'll definitely have to check out Vampire the Masquerade, Temple of Elemental Evil, and Arcanum. Thanks.

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by NES Oldskooler

Take a similar combat situation, only we're now playing a geriatric wizard. He has a low strength, and has overall much less experience in weapons than our young hero. He rolls a die to attack the same goblin and gets a 16. Even though his attack bonus has degenerated to -5 in his old age, the attack is still enough to hit the goblin.

This is my main issue with dice rolling. In my opinion, a pathetic old man with little combat experience should not be able to fight on the same ground as a trained fighter in any situation. Yeah, I know the fighter will obviously have more health, be able to swing harder, and on average will have more hits because of his attack bonus. The fact remains, though, that depending on how the dice roll, the old wizard could potentially beat him in a one on one sword fight.

To be fair, in a game like Baldur's Gate this would never happen. Multi/duel classing asside (which can complicate matters a little bit) -- Wizards/Sorcerers can only be "proficient" in their weapon styles (ever) while a vanilla fighter could go all the way to grand mastery right off the bat. Not to mention the higher hp rolls and starting hp/available equipment. Even completely naked with both characters wielding daggers or quarterstaves the mage character would never be able to kill the fighter before he explodes the mage into tiny little chunks of flesh, likely from a overkill critical hit. My point is that you overexaggerated a bit.

In a game like Oblivion this is a little more complicated, same for morrowind. But realistically, without power gaming it is the same situation. It simply isn't chosen right off the bat in a character creation screen... Instead you decide rather you want to be a mage or a fighter with the actions you choose in battle. I concede, though, that in both these games with a little effort a mage and warrior has little distinction but that isn't really an advantage for a mage, since the warrior could easily do the reverse and learn magic. Still, it isn't a problem with die rolls, which is what you were insinuating but rather an issue with the way some games are set up. Starting at a higher level than 1 (6/6 or 8 in BG2 for example) is a nice way to try and offset that, though. I guess.

Masquerades has some pretty annoying issues even with user-fixes BTW. The game has a frustrating memory leak, so if you don't have good ram (gig minimum, even with 1.5 if I play for more than 2 hours straight the game gets stuttery) I'd avoid the game until you get a decent upgrade. Arcanum is pretty good, though, and doesn't have too many issues. Combat is severely unbalanced, though. Harm mage can solo through everything without a sweat. There isn't much need for any other magic, or much incentive to play tech when you realize harm is all you need to own everything in the game.

I take it based on bradylama's points, too, that he has an argument against most RPGs being wrongfully branded and not really just issues with Oblivion being a "bad game". I don't really care to argue something like that because it's just too broad a subject. I think something of that calibur deserves it's own thread, rather than be minorly debated here in a thread where it's almost off-topic.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Forsety

Just seemed like an awfully large wall of text and a link might have been easier for people who don't want to wade through it to read newer posts.

It's not called a forum for nothing.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Forsety

Even completely naked with both characters wielding daggers or quarterstaves the mage character would never be able to kill the fighter before he explodes the mage into tiny little chunks of flesh, likely from a overkill critical hit. My point is that you overexaggerated a bit.

Yeah, I did blow it out of proportion, but I really don't like that it's even a possibility. Between the buff warrior and a wizard, the fighter shouldn't even have to roll anything in my opinion.

Quote:

In a game like Oblivion this is a little more complicated, same for morrowind. [...] Still, it isn't a problem with die rolls, which is what you were insinuating but rather an issue with the way some games are set up.

I should have been clearer that my dice complaint wasn't related to Oblivion, exactly. I was just trying to get across that dice aren't necessarily the best system for everything, much less a genre-defining mechanic, which Brady was suggesting. I was just exaggerating an example to show that dice aren't always the answer.

I agreed with Brady's review of Oblivion in that overall it has heavy action elements overall, but I think the combat does something right. In Baldur's Gate, for instance, if you have a tough monster, you tell your character to go attack it. What will happen is that they'll walk up to each other, stop, and start swinging their weapons. There's no movement, and if your character swings and misses, the animation will often go right through the monster.

In my opinion, a battle should be more chaotic and lively. Sure, you can use your imagination in table top games and interpret a miss as your sword being deflected by a shield or something, but you really shouldn't have to guess in a game.

That's what I like about Oblivion. The player is put on the same level as the character. If you see an enemy winding up for a power move, you can see that through the character's own eyes and dodge out of the way. No need to make a perception roll. You can spot when an enemy is recovering from a blow and then pummel them even further. No need to add a +2 to your attack roll since they're caught off guard. I think this kind of immersion is great, and similar ideas should be incorporated into future games. However, I definitely wouldn't want to have to micro-manage a party of six with a system like Oblivion's. Traditional dice rolls can stick around for that kind of game.

I'm sure that you could argue that you can't truly role play a character in an interface like Oblivion's, and that dice rolls are needed to represent the character's strengths and weaknesses, and to an extent it's true depending on the type of mechanic the game is going for. If dice rolls must be used, I want to see everything clearly on the screen. I don't want little text messages popping up saying that I missed or whatever, and I don't want my swinging animation moving through an enemy just because my dice roll sucked.

Basically I think a video game RPG should be wholly different than a traditional table top game, but I guess others would disagree. There are a lot of rules and procedures that were created for table top games that simply don't need to exist in a modern video game. Some games like like Baldur's Gate or Neverwinter Nights pride themselves on being faithful to D&D rulesets, but I think there's definitely room for different kinds of RPGs that can expand and change the traditional mechanics of table top games.

Quote:

I think something of that calibur deserves it's own thread, rather than be minorly debated here in a thread where it's almost off-topic.

Sure, I'll second that.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but if it has, well time to hear it again.

Apparently on ATI cards enabling self-shadows creates strange shadow stripes on animals (deer and horses mostly) as well as on heavily armored characters. Is this a common issue, just in the way all ATI cards render those shadows? Is it just with certain models of cards? And most importantly, can it be fixed without disabling self-shadows all together?

I did a quick google on it and didn't find much, you people are usually more helpful anyway.

How ya doing, buddy?

It's an ATI issue. I'm sure somewhere down the line there will be a driver fix for it. Self Shadows are pretty ugly in this game anyway, though, and even using an NVIDIA card I leave them disabled.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

And how. When I upgraded my RAM, I turned Self-Shadows on and wondered why the whole thing looked like ass. Good job, Bethesda.

Quote:

Masquerades has some pretty annoying issues even with user-fixes BTW. The game has a frustrating memory leak, so if you don't have good ram (gig minimum, even with 1.5 if I play for more than 2 hours straight the game gets stuttery) I'd avoid the game until you get a decent upgrade. Arcanum is pretty good, though, and doesn't have too many issues. Combat is severely unbalanced, though. Harm mage can solo through everything without a sweat. There isn't much need for any other magic, or much incentive to play tech when you realize harm is all you need to own everything in the game.

Point granted on Masquerades. I never said it was perfect in terms of build, but the assessment that it sucked cut deep seeing as how much fun I had with it compared to any other "RPG" that has been released in the past 3 years.

I also covered your points about Arcanum in a review I made before the board crash. Combat was pretty weak to start off with, but the imbalance issues were just rediculous. In a system like Arcanum's, though, there are at least social and quest incentives in roleplaying a Tech-specialized character than in being some faggoty mage.

I also had a problem with the retarded level cap. I understand the need for it, since it keeps the player from becoming untouchable. My issue with it, however, is that it kept your NPCs from levelling up as well, which eliminated the incentive for completing quests outside of its effect on faction and community endings. (another problem with Oblivion's Skill-based system, in that the absence of any ending means that there is no incentive for quest completion outside of baubles and coins)

Quote:

This is my main issue with dice rolling. In my opinion, a pathetic old man with little combat experience should not be able to fight on the same ground as a trained fighter in any situation. Yeah, I know the fighter will obviously have more health, be able to swing harder, and on average will have more hits because of his attack bonus. The fact remains, though, that depending on how the dice roll, the old wizard could potentially beat him in a one on one sword fight.

No matter who you are, or how much experience you have, there's always an element of chance that's set by external factors. Your geriatric wizard will always have a chance of striking any object in the event that he's close enough to hit them. Particularly in the event that the goblin has a lowered guard seeing this frail little old man, which negatively impacts his AC and ability to dodge. Even with a 1/16th chance the wizard has in hitting the goblin, that chance still exists. Ruling it completely out simply because you don't think somebody is capable of hitting something even though they have the base functions with which to do so is pretty naive. The only circumstance that should create a 0% chance of strike is in the event that his arms have been paralyzed, or aren't there.

The possibility for a critical also can't be entirely ruled out, because if the wizard has a chance for hitting something, he also has the chance to strike the brain, the heart, an artery, or any other vital part of the creature's anatomy. This has been abstracted in most games, but in games like Fallout and Silent Storm, where hitting certain body parts through called shots affects character status (stun, motionlessness, knockback, all that good stuff) the anatomy factor is a very important and immersive part of the combat. The Fallouts even had an Anatomy perk that gave the player character increased damage rolls, because of the player character's familiarity with anatomy.

Of course, in actual practice, mathematically speaking your mage will almost always die, and one would have to reload a savegame an average of 16 times to get that 1/16th hit, and then probably another 1/20 chance to get a critical. That means that you'd have to reload an average of 36 times just to get a hit that's worth a damn, and I think you can understand how one would have to be a complete idiot to play in such a fashion. So, practically, your complaint regarding the practicality of a die-based system is highly trivial.

As for your issues regarding aesthetics and immersion, that's up to the designers and the art team. I mean, Fallout had animations signifying evasion as well as hideously brutal death, and it was released back in 97. Ultimately, the aesthetic and immersion factor depend a large part on the capabilities of the engine. Silent Storm is full-3D, and renders character positions as they relate to time in the turn series, as well as implementing fully destructible buildings and physics (what the game lacks, though, is a good aesthetic representation of motionlessness or being knocked down, which Fallout has against it). These are mostly left up, again, to the design team. If you think that gliding enemies and swinging wildly at characters presented in the first person is more immersive, then hey, whatever, but how many times have you not stood still when fighting? Now, ultimately, your aesthetic complaint against die-based systems is trivial, as it depends mostly on the game's design.

I don't think talking about this type of stuff is off-topic, since I think the design methods of Bethesda as shown in Oblivion will impact their development of Fallout 3. (outlook not so good) If an RPG moderator disagrees, though, then I won't complain.

Quote:

I've played or at least a portion of the games in that list, but I'll definitely have to check out Vampire the Masquerade, Temple of Elemental Evil, and Arcanum. Thanks.

A word of warning about ToE. The story isn't that great. ToE is designed directly off of a classic D&D module, and doesn't have much value to a player that doesn't gain nostalgia from having played it in the 80's. Also, while the combat is absolutely increadible, the game itself is highly unstable. I couldn't even get it to play on this computer, so you can expect to jump through a lot of hoops just to get the game running, and that's before the CtDs. For its present 10 dollar price tag, though, the combat is more than worth the hassle.

Good luck finding a copy of Arcanum, though. You might have to acquire it through less than savory means. Arcanum, by the way, is a great example of the lost artform of manual creation. The Guide to the Empire in Oblivion's collector's edition would have been a standard subsection in the manuals of the days of yore.

Silent Storm, by the way, isn't an RPG, but a turn-based tactical combat game. It uses a die roll system, though, and its levelling combines a skill system that increases as the player characters use them, and an experience gain that affects the acquisition of character perks.

The game Hammer & Sickle, though, is basically Silent Storm billed as a tactical RPG. In practice, though, Nival's ambitions didn't live up to what they're capable of, which led to the roleplaying element of the game being absolutely awful. Combat's still awesome, though. I'll probably have a review for it in my chocojournal by the weekend.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Point granted on Masquerades. I never said it was perfect in terms of build, but the assessment that it sucked cut deep seeing as how much fun I had with it compared to any other "RPG" that has been released in the past 3 years.

Oh no, I never meant to insinuate the game wasn't good. It was fantastic, actually, which was all the more reason I was so disappointed with how poorly optimized it was. You'd think after seeing how stable the source engine was in HL2 that you'd get the same relatively smooth experience from Masquerades but reality can be quite harsh. Outside of the terrible engine problems the game was definitely among the best I've played in a long time, though. I guess I should have been a little more specific during my initial post.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I also had a problem with the retarded level cap. I understand the need for it, since it keeps the player from becoming untouchable. My issue with it, however, is that it kept your NPCs from levelling up as well, which eliminated the incentive for completing quests outside of its effect on faction and community endings. (another problem with Oblivion's Skill-based system, in that the absence of any ending means that there is no incentive for quest completion outside of baubles and coins)

I hear you. I removed the level cap but ultimately it didn't help. It only served to unbalance the game even further. The Dredge really sucks, too, since you go there long before the end of the game and if you spend too much time clearing it out you'll be so overleveled you may lose the desire to finish the game when you finally get out. The only real option is to read a walkthrough about finding the secret passage to completely skip it over if you want any sort of challenge out of the game whatsoever from that point forward, heh. I do usually opt to ignore magic when I replay these days. Tech is far cooler IMO and it's a shame it is so desperately overshadowed by magic.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I don't think talking about this type of stuff is off-topic, since I think the design methods of Bethesda as shown in Oblivion will impact their development of Fallout 3. (outlook not so good) If an RPG moderator disagrees, though, then I won't complain.

I'll take your word on it, then. It isn't as if this topic is getting much attention outside of us anyway.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

You'd think after seeing how stable the source engine was in HL2 that you'd get the same relatively smooth experience from Masquerades but reality can be quite harsh. Outside of the terrible engine problems the game was definitely among the best I've played in a long time, though. I guess I should have been a little more specific during my initial post

Yeah. In Troika's defense, though, what they received was a mid-production build of the Source, before it had been fully tested and had all of the kinks worked out. Further testing of the engine may have violated their agreement with Valve, and they were relegated to QA'ing the immediate problems for the game.

The last half is conjecture on my part, but they still ended up getting the shaft.

I also would like to clarify and say that Die-based combat systems aren't necessarily the prerequisite for a roleplaying game, it's just that they fit the genre the most in terms of representing player character abilities and the chances of success.

FELIPE NO