|
More Elder Scrolls : Oblivion Goodness Displaying 1-20 of 20 total.
1
evilbob
|
Posted on 2004-10-23 11:33:09 (last edited on 2004-10-23 11:33:26)
|
Rysen
|
I was looking at screenshots of this today. It's fscking amazing.
Posted on 2004-10-23 11:49:11
|
Interference22
|
This is going to rule like you would not believe. The game looks good and the AI has me really excited. Loved the bit about how the guards ended up brawling because their interests conflicted with things. I will, however, need to fork out for a new PC to play it. Guess it's time to sell my grandparents.
Posted on 2004-10-25 11:45:24
|
loretian
|
WOW.
The graphics look amazing, and yes, the AI stuff sounds really cool. I cannot wait for this game. It sounds like they're addressing every problem I had with Morrowind, and I still loved that game to death, and have gotten hundreds and hundreds of hours of gameplay out of it, and never completed the main quest.
Posted on 2004-10-25 16:58:23 (last edited on 2004-10-25 16:58:52)
|
rpgking
|
Amazing...A lot of those screenshots look almost photorealistic. I like the changes to the combat system they mentioned. Namely, the randomness factor being taken out.
Posted on 2004-10-25 18:19:55
|
evilbob
|
You know, the only things that really bugged me match at all in Morrowind were the following:
1: It doesn't matter which race you play, you walk like you have a load in your pants.
2: When you take the blimp bug things to a different town, it just fades out and you're there. I would have loved to like actually ride in the things.
So far everything's looking pretty bitchin. I anxiously await movie clips showing the thing in action ;_;
Posted on 2004-10-26 00:27:00
|
Feyr
|
I thought it was amusing that the preview I read (might've been the one linked here, I forget) said that the AI is so good that it's causing problems, citing a time when a guard went to hunt deer and all the other guards tried to arrest him for daring to attack a deer, leaving the city unguarded. Yup, sounds like great AI to me. =P If by 'great' you mean 'on par with enemies who charge into a corner and stand there shooting at nothing'. And games have been claiming their worlds are dynamic and 'living' since...well, at least since Elite, if not earlier.
...of course that doesn't mean I'm not looking forward to the game. The fact that the review claimed that as good AI amused me, but I'm sure it'll be better by the time it's released.
Speaking of disappointing dynamic worlds, I have to mention 'Kult: Heretic Kingdoms' here. The reviews I read all oohed and ahhed at the chance to truly make a difference in the world, and choose your own morality. I haven't gone too far into it yet, but so far I've been essentially forced into about five goody-two-shoes quests, and the hard-bitten main character (who complains about not getting any reward for saving the town) then turns around and practically throws herself at the magistrate when he happens to mention that some berries growing in the nearby woods could help his son.
Heroine: (forced dialog) I'll go get the berries for you.
Magistrate: Oh, I didn't mean for you...
Heroine: Don't worry about it.
Bah. -_-
Posted on 2004-10-26 00:45:52 (last edited on 2004-10-26 00:53:27)
|
zaril
|
My only beef with Morrowind was that walking around the world was really boring. The landscapes were dull and uninteresting, I would love to have seen some other form of filler inbetween places such as cities. However, the game is absolutely awesome, Oblivion is most likely the winner of my 'Annual Game I Pay For'-Award.
Posted on 2004-10-26 10:34:28
|
Omni
|
It would be great if you could fly in Morrowind.
I mean, not like a super jump or just a float walk, but actual flight. With wings.
Why is that never a feature in a big exploration game? And mid-air battles! Maybe a dragon! You could fly on the dragon! And hop off and give the dragon AI battle commands while you fight alongside it! In mid-air!
Good gosh that would be awesome!
Posted on 2004-10-26 18:14:56
|
Interference22
|
Feyr, you're missing the point on the AI. The joke is that they're NOT doing what they're not supposed to (for example, banging into walls - an example of truly awful AI) but are in fact doing more than effectively what they were told. The AI has reached a decision entirely on its own based on what it knows and that's fairly impressive, even if in our eyes it's the wrong one.
Anyway, once they introduce some proper rules to dictate that there are certain instance of certain activities that the AI should simply let happen things will settle down.
Posted on 2004-10-26 20:55:24
|
Alex
|
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
This is going to rule like you would not believe.
Ah, but, that's what some people said about Fable, and look what a hideous pile of shite that turned out to be. :(
Though I have to agree, it's looking very nice.
Posted on 2004-10-26 23:52:06
|
Feyr
|
The AI has reached a decision entirely on its own based on what it knows and that's fairly impressive, even if in our eyes it's the wrong one.
Eh. I'm a little iffy on that. I've written AI for MUDs (I was a developer and eventually administrator for a fairly popular game (http://www.merentha.com) for about seven years before I retired), and I've certainly done code that had 'interesting' and unintended effects like that, and I was never very impressed with it. Like the time I was helping another coder on the game do a massive, continuing war between a city of centaurs and an orc army. The looters that were supposed to run around grabbing dropped equipment and the medics carrying the dead and unconcious back to their home towns ended up getting slaughtered by the combatants in our first attempt, drawing more medics and looters to the area, which in turn made both sides concentrate more heavily on that area, etc. So you had a giant brawl in a handful of rooms (the atomic unit of location in the game) while the rest of the battlefield was nothing but the occasional soldier rushing off to join in the battle. And then the newbie coder I was helping decided he had better things to do than finish his area, so it got scrapped. *sigh*
Sounds roughly equivalent to what they did in Oblivion, and I think it smacks of a lack of forethought (which is what I laughed at myself for when I saw what was happening) than any intriguing new development. Emergent behavior is nothing new. The most immediate example that comes to mind is the trading system in 'X2: The Threat'. You could influence the economy of several star systems, or just watch as the independent traders, resource bases and pirates acted based on little more than the laws of supply and demand. Plus it had a nifty little programming console that let you write scripts to automate a fleet of ships, once you could afford to buy more than one. Of course I got bored with that once I finished writing a trading script good enough to pull in more money than I could use.
I don't question the possibility that they might be doing it better than anyone else has yet...someone has to, eventually. It's just that we (as gamers) have been promised dynamic worlds hundreds of times before, and I have never seen one that I'm satisfied with yet. ...of course, I doubt I'll ever be fully satisfied by anything short of a Turing-capable AI. *snicker*
Oh, hey, look at that. My reinstallation of Visual Studio .NET says it needs the second CD. I had forgotten I was installing it. o_O
Posted on 2004-10-27 00:04:47 (last edited on 2004-10-27 00:10:29)
|
evilbob
|
Quote: Originally posted by Alex
Quote:Originally posted by Interference22
This is going to rule like you would not believe.
Ah, but, that's what some people said about Fable, and look what a hideous pile of shite that turned out to be. :(
Though I have to agree, it's looking very nice.
'They said XXX would rule and it YYY' is a totally meaningless statement, unless the game currently under discussion is XXX 2.
The fact that Fable has received consistently high reviews and that you are the first person I have seen refer to it as shit are worth noting, but still beside the point. Molyneaux and the Bethesda guys have completely different gaming philosophies and approaches to design.
Posted on 2004-10-27 00:17:06 (last edited on 2004-10-27 00:18:28)
|
Khross
|
Quote:Originally posted by Omni
It would be great if you could fly in Morrowind.
I mean, not like a super jump or just a float walk, but actual flight. With wings.
I had an absurdly godlike vampire sorceror and since I wasn't allowed on the Silk Striders I just equipped the boots of blinding speed and an enchanted ring of permanant levitation, pointed him in the right direction, toggled walk and then left and got a ham sandwich or something for the meantime.
I never beat the main quest either, which I understand involves a lot of errand running, courting the Great Houses and doing noble deeds to win Vivec's favor. Instead, I just broke into his chamber, murdered him and took the broken artifact from his corpse. :D I liked the irony of a hated vampire saving the world from Dagoth Ur, though I wish the option had been left open to use the Heart to make yourself a god as the Tribunal did-- but that would require (omg) cause and effect, which was sorely lacking in the game.
Posted on 2004-10-27 01:47:34 (last edited on 2004-10-27 01:48:04)
|
Alex
|
Quote:Originally posted by evilbob'They said XXX would rule and it YYY' is a totally meaningless statement, unless the game currently under discussion is XXX 2.
The fact that Fable has received consistently high reviews and that you are the first person I have seen refer to it as shit are worth noting, but still beside the point. Molyneaux and the Bethesda guys have completely different gaming philosophies and approaches to design.
I wasn't comparing Fable and Oblivion in any sense other than the fact that they're both games that people are/were drooling over. You're right that shit isn't necessarily a measured word to describe Fable (and I wasn't necessarily being 100% serious), but the review you point to shows a rating of 85%, which is exactly the problem. It's obviously a good rating, but countless games get similar scores without generating hype of the 'THIS WILL BE THE BEST GAME IN THE WORLD EVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!' variety for three years prior to release. It's good, and the graphics are incredibly lovely, but as we all know graphics don't make a game. If they did, maybe it *would* be one of the best games ever... Anyway, what I'm trying to say in my own rambly way is that when all the hype was generated, all people had to go on were a few screenshots and descriptions of the game from the developers, which is all we have now with Oblivion... Maybe it'll turn out to be as good as it looks, but maybe it won't. Fable didn't. My own opinion of course, and if anyone disagrees then good for them and I'm glad they like it, but I think the vast majority would be forgiven for being rather disappointed.
Oh well, maybe it's just me. :)
Posted on 2004-10-27 22:58:22 (last edited on 2004-10-27 23:01:02)
|
rpgking
|
Alex, I remember you were one of the people hyping Fable like crazy before it was released. ;)
Posted on 2004-10-27 23:25:24
|
Omni
|
Wait.
Are you saying after all that, Fable turned out to be crap? Heh. Shame, I thought it was halfway interesting.
Posted on 2004-10-28 00:30:23
|
evilbob
|
Actually I didn't post to a review, but a site that averages all of the known reviews for a given game (think gamer's rottentomatoes). Most Fable scores from reliable reviews are 90+ %.
But yeah. For any given game that presents (or claims) such great potential you will see the same things repeated over and over until the next hyped thing comes along. The hype will follow what there is to see, the anti-hype will claim that what you see 'doesn't make a game*,' and the middle-ground will be the usual 'well we'll see on release_date.'
* It works for everything. A good story doesn't automatically make the game fun, the graphics are awesome but the gameplay could be shit, the gameplay might be great but who cares if it hurts to look at and has music like nails on a chalkboard, etc.
Posted on 2004-10-28 00:30:38 (last edited on 2004-10-28 00:31:35)
|
KilloZapit
|
After the disaster Morrowind was, I am very skeptical of Oblivion's prospects. The problem as I see it is simple: Arena and Daggerfall used limited interactivity but had a huge scope with many random and diverse locations and quests to make up for it. With Morrowind, they decided to focus on a much smaller world with much more pre-scripted and concrete goals, a la Ultima 7. The problem was, Morrowind didn't do it well at all. Ultima 7 had a fairly small but incredibly detailed prescripted interactive world with many NPCs who had lots of interesting prescriped dialog. Morrowind doesn’t. Like the Elder Scrolls games before it a vast majority of NPCs in Morrowind are cardboard cutouts, interactivity is limited, and much of the world is bland at best. Unlike the Elder Scrolls games before it however, it wasn't as dynamic, didn't have as many interesting random quests and stuff to do, and didn't have much in the way of cool random places and things. Oblivion looks quite good though. The world is much more dynamic and randomized then Morrowind, the AI looks interesting, and the game is very pretty. However I fear it may become another soul-less world with no heart or diversity-less world with no depth. Luckily I think that’s the exact kind of think they are tiring hard to avoid.
Posted on 2004-10-28 00:31:11
|
Alex
|
Quote:Originally posted by rpgking
Alex, I remember you were one of the people hyping Fable like crazy before it was released. ;)
That's true! But it was just to annoy those Zelda people (if memory serves). :D
Posted on 2004-10-28 01:43:01
|
Displaying 1-20 of 20 total.
1
|
|