News The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim announced

For graphics, I prefer Vanguard and Age of Conan to Oblivion, but really there's not much in it. I would never argue that Oblivion didn't do an amazing job with graphics, my gripe with the Elder Scrolls games are that the gameplay is ****.

I'm not sure what you mean by player perspective, but combat is something I could defend forever. It's pretty much the biggest thing in my gaming life. I live for RPG combat, and I know it inside out. To me, Oblivion is some of the worst combat I've ever seen. I like that it's fluid and plays like an FPS which is quite good (although I'd rather just play a real FPS if I want that kind of thing). What I hate is that it's so shallow. As a melee or hybrid character there is little more to it than left click to swing your weapon, and right click to block, with a few spells to help you out. As a spellcaster, you spend most of the game running around, spamming your crappy generic firebolt spell like the most tedious FPS ever made. Later on when you can make spells, you can make a spell that kills 99% of enemies with one shot. It's got to be the worst I've ever seen, by quite a big margin.

I wasn't all that impressed by Dragon Age, but to think that each character in that game is comparable to Oblivion and yet you have a whole party of them, just shows how far behind Oblivion is. As for MMORPG's, I don't know what MMORPG's you've played but most of the ones I've played have first person views, and most of them are leaps and bounds ahead of Oblivion. I could explain it but there's too much in those games to even explain, but even in the likes of WoW, the combat is far more advanced, and most MMORPG fans consider WoW to be a kid friendly simple game.

Something like Vanguard absolutely craps all over Oblivion in every respect. The only comparable thing would be the graphics (and even that I would give to Vanguard), but everything else, is miles better than Oblivion. The world is probably multiple times bigger, it has dozens more varieties of locations, it has an amazing crafting and harvesting system, it has flying mounts, player owned ships that they can sail, it has better music (and far more of it), better UI, infinitely more spells and combat abilities, better everything basically, and it has some of the best combat you can find outside of specialist titles like Magic The Gathering.

As for cost, that's a different discussion. We're talking about gameplay, not which game is the best value for money. Although even with that, there are some free games that I would much rather plan than Oblivion anyway.

Most of what I play is single player. I prefer a story driven game too, but to me, gameplay is the most important thing. If all I want is a good story, then there are far better ways to get that, like reading a book. When I'm looking for good gameplay, I will play anything, any genre, online or offline.

I think Eve and Guild Wars (which isn't even an MMO) gave you a bad impression. The whole point of MMO's are that they are massive. They are filled with real people in the same way that real life is filled with real people. If someone annoys you, move on and play with other people. That's what it's all about, and eventually you make friends and join guilds and that way you get to just spend all your time surrounded by people you like.

No I didn't say that. I said that there ARE games that do as much in one, and some that do it better than Oblivion. Like I said, most MMORPG's do everything Oblivion does, but far better. But there are single player games that do that too. In fact there were single player RPG's like Betrayal At Krondor doing as much as Oblivion, about 20 years ago.

That's just your opinion. Mine is different. I think it does almost everything badly. I like it's graphics, but I can't think of ONE other redeeming feature. It has a very bland world with hardly any variety at all, it has cut and paste dungeons that are all the same, and all too small, it has about 4 different types of enemy in the entire game, (and the same with voices), it has a main quest that I could complete in about one afternoon, it's filled with the most generic of side quests, it has no real tradeskills, and it has some of the worst combat I've ever seen.

Exactly. It's all flashyness and no substance. Besides graphics, it's a step backwards from even Morrowind, and even Morrowind wouldn't make my top 10 RPG's.

 

Hi sausages,

I agree with some of the criticisms you've made, a number of them are fair, (ie, limited combat) but I also think a number of them are not.

Talking about graphics for a moment, you compare it to Vanguard and Age of Conan, but:
Oblivion: 2006
Vanguard: 2007
Age of Conan: 2008

So there's a difference right there. Plus both of those are MMO's, so will have ongoing development on them.

Dragon Age was made in 2009, so again, hardly a fair or equal comparison.

You talk about the MMO's being multiples bigger than Oblivion with tons more content - well I should hope so, they're MMO's! You can't in one breath say they're massively bigger and more content-rich, then in the next breath say you shouldn't compare costs - costs in that respect are everything.

Oblivion: Say £25 (when it came out).
MMO: £25 + what? £9 per month for a couple of years?
£25 + (£9 x 24) = £241.

If you're paying ten time the amount I think it's fair to expect at least ten times the content - just as you wouldn't directly compare a Ford Focus (£15k) to a Lamborghini Gallardo (£150k), because while they're both driving experiences, they're in different leagues of expectation.

Also don't forget that in MMO's the player experience is constantly tweaked, refined and added to over the course of it's life, constantly rebalancing and improving the experience. That's what subscription buys.

They may both be fantasy games, but really, they are very different choices. I used to play MMO's but gave up due to time constraints - whereas something like the Elder Scrolls can be picked up for a spare half hour and then put back again. You really can't do that with an MMO, not if you're playing with other people or are part of a guild - once you log in you're expected to complete a certain quest/mission, which usually ends up taking hours.

Don't get me wrong, I think Oblivion was 'dumbed-down' considerably even from Morrowind, (for it's console release no doubt) I just think expectations of a single player, one-fee game have to be kept realistic.

If they can fix some of the major gripes people had with it: Enemy levelling for example, (which should be easy to fix) I think the next one could be superb.

I'm looking forward to it anyway. In November...

 

That's not really relevant. You can't keep throwing in conditions, or I could do the same. Like for example, it's not fair because Oblivion is bound to look so good because it's world is so much smaller.

But I don't want to keep going on about graphics. I'm not interested in them. I am happy to admit that Oblivion had amazing graphics and it was fantastic looking and still looks good even today etc.. But I don't care, because I'm one of those unusual people who plays games for their gameplay more than the way they look, and that's what disappoints me the most about the Elder Scrolls games.

That's just another condition you are trying to throw in. Like I said, we are talking about the quality of gameplay not which is the best value for money. You are trying to turn the discussion away from what it was meant to be about. I'm arguing that the gameplay is crappy, and especially crappy compared to the alternatives. The money doesn't have anything to do with that, that's to do with value for money, and not quality of gameplay. Besides, like I said, there are MMO's which are free to play monthly, and there are even some that are free to play and free to buy too - ie: they cost absolutely nothing at all, ever.

That's not even a sensible analogy though. The difference is that a not many people can afford £150k on a car, but most people can afford to play an MMO if they want to. One game might cost more than the other, but seeing as I can easily afford both, I don't care about the cost. All I care about is which is the better game. Again if you are going to throw in conditions to try to make the argument I could do the same and say a packet of crisps are a better meal than a restaurant meal because they are many times cheaper. When what you want is a nice meal, it doesn't matter how cheap a pack of crisps are.

You can do that in MMO's. Some people find it hard to do because they are so hooked, and they aren't prepared to manage their time properly, but it's perfectly possible. I know lots of people who play MMORPG's and play just a few hours in an entire week. It's also just another condition that really doesn't have anything to do with the quality of gameplay we've been trying to talk about.

It's not an unrealistic expectation, it's just people with different priorities. In my view, their priority with Oblivion was getting a big dumbed down, mainstream game, that attracts the mass market audience with flashy graphics, can be sold on all formats, and that is basic enough that anyone can play, any age, any skill level, and so it sells incredibly well. They achieved that well, but the high sales are no consolation to those of us who just care about a good gameplay experience. I like modern graphics, but I would prefer a game that prioritises gameplay far beyond flashy presentation.

 

Hmm... I didn't expect Oblivion to take such a hard bashing...

Oblivion was an incredible game. Morrowind was an incredible game. I see a lot of people attacking both for particular things they did and didn't do. Take both of them as a full experience, for what they are. They are both different games.

Now, having said that Morrowind was better. Better and probably should have got much more praise than it did. At the time it was released, it did things that were unprecedented. It allowed you to totally immerse yourself in a world and do what you want, a concept relatively new at the time (save GTA, though ESIII probably accomplished this much better). Though it didn't get a lot of attention because of both GTA and the fact that it was inaccessible. It was a hard core gamer's game.

Oblivion was much less a new experience than it was a "where do we go from here?" game. Instead of taking the overload you with stuff to do approach, Bethesda decided to scale back on the size, and instead try to create a more detailed experience. Think about the voice acting. Something we take for granted now with games like mass effect out, it was something that at the time, and even now, hasn't really been accomplished in a rpg that size.

I look at Oblivion as something like a Jade Empire and and Elder Scrolls 3.5. We'll improve on the complaints of the original and experiment with some new stuff that will hopefully come to fruition in a later game (we'll have to see when this is released). And it ended up being an incredible experience. I just hope that they don't go and try to make another mass effect. That's the only shortfall I see possible with this one.

 

What are you talking about? I answer some of your points, and I'm not allowed to because it's not fair? What?

You compare a game to some that are nearly four years newer, or ones still under constant development - I point that out and that's unfair of me?

You compare a game to one that costs many, many times more - I point out that's not a fair comparison and I'm not allowed to do that?

The reason I brought up the subject of money was this:

Yes. And it's an MMO: Which has monthly subscriptions, which pays for developers to keep developing and improving and expanding it.

Why is that an unreasonable point to make?

You cannot fairly compare a standalone product of nearly five years ago to a modern, subscription based MMO under constant development. It's an absurd comparison. I think the fact that you're even attempting to do so speaks volumes about the scope, scale and ambition of Oblivion in the first place.

OK, I'm not really convinced you even understand what an analogy is after that. (Or the concept of value).

The point I was trying to make was that if you pay a lot more for something then the expectation level will be greater. Or put another way, if you pay a great deal less than the expectation level should be lower. You shouldn't really need to actually afford a £150k car to understand the point I was making...

The fact that you can afford both standalone games and MMO's does not make it fair to compare them to each-other. And the crisps to a meal analogy is nonsense, as you're not comparing like for like. If you need to be able to actually afford it to understand the comparison I was trying to make, then compare a £5 meal in a cafe to a £50 meal in a restaurant. Yes you expect the £5 meal to be enjoyable, but not on the same level of perfection as the £50 one.

Is that really such a bizarre point I'm trying to make?

The point I made about MMO's vs a single player, standalone game - that you can dip in and out of the single game easier - was meant to be just that, it's easier. I wasn't suggesting that to play MMO's you have to be hooked on 8 hours a night. However, if you're playing with a bunch of other people and you go on a quest together, it's not really very good etiquette to simply check out halfway through - as depending on the role you were playing in the group you may end the quest for everyone. You start doing that too often and you soon lose friends in the game.

That's not a criticism of the genre, just pointing out an important difference and why some people prefer one over the other.

Look, we both agree on certain aspects of it: That the combat could be improved, that elements of it were too simplistic or should have been better - I'm just saying it needs to be judged of its time, not against modern games of an entirely different model.

 

Has Warrior returned?? he was the last person i saw on these forums use this level of idiocy to argue a point!

 

Only from a few of us though. Most people like it.

? What have I said that is idiotic? Or are you just trolling.

Surely I explained my point pretty clearly, numerous times. You are comparing the VALUE FOR MONEY of games, when I'm just comparing how good they are. What is about that which you just can't understand?

That game barely had any development since release. It was released on day one like that.

I've explained it already, read it again ffs.

You are talking about a year difference at the most, and besides, it's not even a good point seeing as Everquest came out several years earlier than Oblivion, does everything better, and has a smaller budget. How are you going to defend that?

Not to even mention single player equivalents like the early Might & Magic or Wizardry games, or Betrayal At Krondor etc.. or all the countless none first person games which are amazing like the Fallout games, BG1+2 etc, and yet they are no less immersive either.

So you are talking about 'modifying your expectation levels' based on price, not treating everything equally... In other words, you are biased because it's cheap.

You are the one failing to understand the point. I'm talking about a price difference that is so insignificant to some of us, that it just doesn't even matter.

Your price angle is a crappy argument too, because I've already told you about games that are completely free, including MMORPG's.

That's not much of an argument either. All you do is play for a couple of hours and then solo for a while and don't start any new group stuff before you need to leave. Don't blame peoples lack of self control on the genre.

That's just your age argument again. You don't have any valid argument, all you have is AGE and PRICE and both of them are bad arguments. There are examples of older games than Oblivion which do things better, I told you why price isn't relevant to anything except value for money, and most importantly of all, all of this crap has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE GAMEPLAY which is what we were discussing before you came along and tried to drag the discussion in to a completely different direction to suit yourself.

 

.

 

Sausages,

I logged in to counter some of what you said, but thinking about it, I'd just be wasting my time wouldn't I?

- You fail completely to understand the points I'm trying to make, (not just that you disagree with them, but that you simply don't even understand them).
- Accuse me of 'imposing conditions' or 'taking the subject off course', when actually I'm just countering your own arguments and comparisons.
- Argue with me even where I'm agreeing with you.
- Then throw in some SHOUTING AT ME for good measure.

This clearly wasn't a discussion, it was a competition. Well, I hereby withdraw and declare you the winner.

You beat me, well done.

 

I understood everything you said, but all you can say is that it's cheap and old. That's your only angle. It's not hard to understand at all, it's just a lame argument and has nothing to do with gameplay.

 

Morrowind + mods = Awesome!
Oblivion + mods = Awesome!
Skyrim + mods ...

What makes PC gaming the greatest?... MODS!

Those of you that didn't think Morrowind or Oblivion were great games did not mod enough.
Look at any game that gives you the tools to mod the hell out of it as an open book or a gateway to unlimited creativity.

 

Did you know that the Skyrim logo can be found in the Oblivion game?? Just go to the Imperial City, the TESV logo is on the gates!

Here is a screenshot for if you don't want to start up Oblivion:
http://img26.imageshack.us/i/skyrimlogoinoblivion.png/