94 réponses à ce sujet

[Guiomar]

Jaryd theBlackDragon wrote...

Jim_uk wrote...

Oblivion is an action game with stats pretending to be an RPG, Dragon Age isn't.

I prefer S.T.A.L.K.E.R. over Oblivion then. At least the combat didn't suck and it certainly wasn't as mindnumbingly repetitive...

S.T.A.l.K.E.R. All the way !!

[Dark83]

Jim_uk wrote...

I think Bethesda took a step in the right direction with Fallout3, there are a couple of choices and it is possible to fail a couple of the quests but they could go a lot further. It's a huge improvement over Oblivion where the were no choices at all and the only way to fail was to die. That said I still had to have a lot of mods running to really enjoy it.

You've GOT to be ****ing kidding me.
They ****ed up Fallout 3 majorly by - and this is their own admission - putting writing as a non-priority. Not a low priority - they said writing was unimportant. In an RPG. Yeah.

Which is why we end up with the stupidest most worthless main storyline of all time. Not to mention the utter lack of the Fallout Series' signature endgame slides that tells you what the consequences of your actions were. This is pretty much the single most important bit, because it makes you feel like you actually made a difference. As opposed to setting off a nuclear weapon and having it almost be completely unrecognized.

Bethseda makes awesome sandboxes. They just need better writers. At least they got rid of the utterly brainless autoleveling enemies system which could have entire groups of random bandits show up in full daedric gear.

I loved firing rocket launchers in VATS and having the camera follow it to the mutie's eye, and the subsequent explosion in slow motion, but recognize that Bethseda is excellent at making sandboxes, not RPGs.

PROTIP: It's easy to filter radiation from water, all you need is dirt.

Modifié par Dark83, 23 novembre 2009 - 04:00 .

[AiyanaLindari]

They're different but good in their own ways.

I  have great memories of playing Morrowind and Oblivion. I enjoyed the openess of the world. Flying and the boots of blinding speed in Morrowind or riding a horse as the the rain starts to fall on a moonlit night in Oblivion...definitely unique and memorable experiences.

Dragon Age is different but excellent. It has a very good storyline, enjoyable dialogue and interesting tactical gameplay. I have a feeling I will also play this game numerous times and have wonderful memories of it many years down the line.

Modifié par AiyanaLindari, 23 novembre 2009 - 04:18 .

[Few87]

Solmyr2000 wrote...

It's easy.
Oblivion = Fallout 3 = Action/RPG
Morrowind = Daggerfall = RPG
Fallout 2 = Fallout 1 = RPG
Dragon age = BG 2 = BG 1 = RPG

and Action = Fail
so It's like
Oblivion = Fail RPG
Dragon age = RPG

BTW, TBS and RPG FTW

Exactly, thats the perfect way to sum this up!

[Durallan]

Can't I love them both? becuase I do.

[Jim_uk]

Dark83 wrote...

Jim_uk wrote...

I think Bethesda took a step in the right direction with Fallout3, there are a couple of choices and it is possible to fail a couple of the quests but they could go a lot further. It's a huge improvement over Oblivion where the were no choices at all and the only way to fail was to die. That said I still had to have a lot of mods running to really enjoy it.

You've GOT to be ****ing kidding me.
They ****ed up Fallout 3 majorly by - and this is their own admission - putting writing as a non-priority. Not a low priority - they said writing was unimportant. In an RPG. Yeah.

Which is why we end up with the stupidest most worthless main storyline of all time. Not to mention the utter lack of the Fallout Series' signature endgame slides that tells you what the consequences of your actions were. This is pretty much the single most important bit, because it makes you feel like you actually made a difference. As opposed to setting off a nuclear weapon and having it almost be completely unrecognized.

Bethseda makes awesome sandboxes. They just need better writers. At least they got rid of the utterly brainless autoleveling enemies system which could have entire groups of random bandits show up in full daedric gear.

I loved firing rocket launchers in VATS and having the camera follow it to the mutie's eye, and the subsequent explosion in slow motion, but recognize that Bethseda is excellent at making sandboxes, not RPGs.

PROTIP: It's easy to filter radiation from water, all you need is dirt.

Where in my post did I say the writing was any good? I said the game was a step in the right direction and stated why. I'm well aware of what Pete Hines said and it's painfully obvious from the dialouge and idiotic story that they made no effort there but to their credit they did at least allow for failure and give one or two choices, as I said " a step in the right direction".

[Cquattro2009]

Few87 wrote...

Is this serious, oblivion isnt even an RPG. Well I know they claim it is but in reality its a pretty heinous FPS with swords. Such a shame after morrowind, its like disneys remake of an RPG game, I mean really all copies of oblivion should be destroyed.

Funny you mentioned this.  I spent months playing Morrowind.  Before WOW, it was the game that held my attention non stop for the longest period of time.  I spent hours and hours just wandering around the landscape finding new things, new quests, new items.  It was completely enthralling and I loved it.  I was actually sad when I finally got around to completing the main quest. 

Oblivion for some weird reason just didn't have a hold over me the same way.  While I loved exploring in Morrowind, for some reason it felt tedious to me in Oblivion. Don't know why but I just couldn't get into the game the same way. 

[SheffSteel]

Oblivion is an attempt at realising one particular vision of what an RPG could be, which has over the course of time had its failings exposed and exploited mercilessly.



DAO is not.

[Bibdy]

I think the most obvious difference is Open World/Playground vs directed story and closed environments.

Personally, I prefer the latter. Open worlds tend to be exact that. Big, open and devoid of any content or anything interesting to visit. You get to a new place, smash through it in 20 seconds and leave. I mean, how many of those stupid caves, Aeilliad Ruins and whatever could you possibly go through before you wanted to gouge your eyes out at the repetitiveness?

Whereas in the closed environment worlds like Bioware creates, they can put more development time into creating interesting events and content and make you revisit those areas and get to appreciate the architecture and scenery on a smaller scale, rather than a larger scale like Oblivion where you're basically running around the places, climbing mountains trying to get a shot at those massive vistas. Take a screenshot and be on your way.

And god help me the levelling system in Oblivion was retarded. Gain an entire level by running and jumping your way around town? That was kinda dumb.

[Dark83]

Jim_uk wrote...

Where in my post did I say the writing was any good? I said the game was a step in the right direction and stated why. I'm well aware of what Pete Hines said and it's painfully obvious from the dialouge and idiotic story that they made no effort there but to their credit they did at least allow for failure and give one or two choices, as I said " a step in the right direction".

Well, first I have to assume that you agree with me that the writing in Morrowind or Oblivion is better. At which point it is definetely not a step in the right direction. Obilvion was at least mildly interesting. Morrowind was fairly surprising on my first playthrough.

[CoM Solaufein]

DA isn't open world like Oblivion which IMO is a major step back.

[Sylixe]

Uhm..the two games aren't even close.  Oblivion is like a poor mans ripoff of Morrowind , which is still a better game from bethesda.

[Jim_uk]

Dark83 wrote...

Jim_uk wrote...

Where in my post did I say the writing was any good? I said the game was a step in the right direction and stated why. I'm well aware of what Pete Hines said and it's painfully obvious from the dialouge and idiotic story that they made no effort there but to their credit they did at least allow for failure and give one or two choices, as I said " a step in the right direction".

Well, first I have to assume that you agree with me that the writing in Morrowind or Oblivion is better. At which point it is definetely not a step in the right direction. Obilvion was at least mildly interesting. Morrowind was fairly surprising on my first playthrough.

Why keep bringing up the writing? I never mentioned the writing because that is one area where they haven't improved. Oblivion is as bad, Bethesda need to hire writers and stop using the local kindergarten. 

[CoM Solaufein]

DA actually has more than four voice actors.



I like Oblivion but come on, get some different voices.

[MarkyT]

Sarakinoi wrote...

You are comparing two games spaced by at least 3-4 years, not exactly fair.

If you want a better comparison, pit a more recent Bethesda game like Fallout 3 vs DA:O. But even then, they are very different beasts with very different approaches, qualities, and shortcomings.

Oblivion was good. I like first person RPGs + open worlds, etc I find it immensely more immersive. I didn't follow the story at all at first and just explored randomly, stumbling into strange places, people, creatures, and whatnot and doing small quests here and there. The freedom to do this is a big advantage of Bethesda's approach.

Dragon Age is different... Smaller in a way, and even if we lose some freedom we gain more quality in the environments as Bioware can hand make everything to produce the exact experience they wish to. In this DA:O is more of a novel, while Oblivion is more of a virtual world.

I'm with this guy. DAO has more narrative drive and group dynamics. Oblivion offered more of a world to pootle about in and find fun stuff. Both offer many hours of top notch entertainment.

As to those posters who get all high and mighty about what a "real RPG" is, get a life. Both DAO and Oblivion are great RPGs. There are many many approaches to the genre in video games, all with pluses and minuses.

But none will ever match a group of people hanging out with each other and creating an imaginative fantasy on the fly. THAT is a "true" RPG, if you want to get all purist. Acting out a role with other humans, taking advantage of the extraordinary real time creative engine called the human brain. No PC is even close to that yet.

Modifié par MarkyT, 23 novembre 2009 - 09:33 .

[Jojanonasos]

I guess there is some thought behind the leveling system and it might have made sense in the developers heads. However, when the only way to get your character stronger is to equip some weapon he totally sucks at wielding and bash up random creatures of the wild, instead of using your mainweapon, since training with that will level up the kobolds too fast and make the character a wimp relative these kobolds, defies all logic and makes the RPG-magic disappear further away than in wow.



Apart from the level system from hell and that the combatsystem totally lacks all finesse especially for a melee and the flatness of all characters I have not that many issues with oblivion. DA is nice so far but I think I might have liked it better on the pc than on ps3.

[Aether99]

Sarakinoi wrote...

wait...how can you say oblivion was immersive if you also say you didnt follow the story at all the first time?

I said I did not follow the story at first. And yes it was more immersive in the sens that some moments you can forget that you are playing a game and completely feel like the character. Sneaking into an obscure Daedra ruin and try to get the treasure without fighting the guardians, then you suddenly jump in your chair as something creeps behind you and attack, then you run trying to leave as you are not strong enough to fight it.
Third person view is not as immersive as you are always looking at the character. You are not living the events, and you rarely feel the sens of danger you can in first person because somehow it is the character you are looking at from above that is dying or bleeding. Most sensations don't get to you as there is a middle man to soak up a lot of it. Even more so when you control a party, as characters feel more like tools you are using to follow the story and fight, they are not "you". I feel only first person can give you that proximity, and that's why I say it is ultimately more immersive.

Then I guess that explains why I dislike oblivion even further.  I typically dislike having those feelings in a videogame.  Takes the fun out for me because it no longer feels like a game.

[Dark83]

Jim_uk wrote...

Why keep bringing up the writing? I never mentioned the writing because that is one area where they haven't improved. Oblivion is as bad, Bethesda need to hire writers and stop using the local kindergarten. 

'cause RPGs = Writing?

Seriously, STALKER isn't an RPG, but it's still exploration and shooty. If I wanted that I'd play, er, STALKER. Or heck, GTA - which really isn't an RPG either. (I don't think it's billed as such, is it?)

I blame Diablo for misapproprating the RPG label.

[astrallite]

Let me guess, every game not-created by Bioware does not categorize as an RPG.

[Shannara13]

astrallite wrote...

Let me guess, every game not-created by Bioware does not categorize as an RPG.

This is the internet. Here every game made by another company is horrible and even the ones made by your current favorite company are just less horrible.

[CBGB]

This is the internet. Here every game made by another company is horrible and even the ones made by your current favorite company are just less horrible.

Ha!

DAO scared me at the opening screen, which is eerily reminiscent of Oblivion in its interface of shaping a character face. My main character even looks the same. I worried that this would be another "open-ended" RPG, which feels like an under-populated MMO.

I shouldn't have worried.

The story is far more developed in DA. The 'open-ended' play of Oblivion was much touted by fans, but I believe that's a mistake for an RPG. In a game market where MMO's attract millions, a single-player RPG can offer something they can't, and that's a rich story with the player as the central hero.

One of the genius strokes of the Baldur's Gate series was that it left so much choice to the player while still offering a clear story. There was a particular progression of chapters, but how you arrived at each step was up to you.

I've never seen it as well done. Until now.

[Dark83]

astrallite wrote...

Let me guess, every game not-created by Bioware does not categorize as an RPG.

Wizardry wasn't made by Bioware, nor Bards Tale. Fallout 1&2 were made by Interplay, as I recall. Arcanum wasn't Bioware, nor the Ultimas.

All those games I listed are RPGs, and nobody would claim otherwise.

Are you saying Stalker is an RPG? I mean, Deus Ex had skills, at least. System Shock, too. Wait, actually, I don't remember Stalker too well - was there a skill system or anything?

[Dex1701]

I dunno...I got bored with Oblivion really quickly. The story wasn't interesting, the characters' personalities are 2-D and horribly boring, there are no consequences for any of your choices, the level scaling is too extreme (kill the legendary King of Worms at level 4....really?), character development and leveling up feels like a pointless treadmill, gameplay is repetitive (I have to close how many of these stupid Oblivion gates?), combat requires little strategy, the backdrop was totally bland, the artwork was cliche, and I could go on.

I loved Morrowind, though. Oblivion included some gameplay improvements, but other than that I found it far inferior to Morrowind in just about every other way. The only thing that saved Oblivion for me was complete overhaul mods like FCOM.

That said, Bethesda's games are a completely different type of experience than Bioware's, and I don't think you can really make a fair comparison between them.

CoM Solaufein wrote...

DA isn't open world like Oblivion which IMO is a major step back.

It isn't a "step back," it's just a different type of game.  Sandbox, "open world" games are cool, and they can give an experience that non-"open world" games can't.  However, because of their "open world" nature it's difficult for them to have choices with real, world-changing consequences or a really believable, cinematic narrative style like more "closed-world" games do.  There are pro's and con's to both approaches.  One isn't necessarily "better" than the other.

Modifié par Dex1701, 24 novembre 2009 - 01:03 .

[spernus]

Bioware is easily more talented than Bethesda,even the codex will aknowledge that.

One thing Bethesda will always get right is this: they will always give you an awesome sandbox game/rpg hybrid.Even better than what Rockstar north can come up with in their latest 100 million $$$ GTA.That is the main reason why Bethesda end up making sloppy games and a 92-93% on metacritics.

The problem is pretty much everything else related to the quality of the game. They have some of the worst writers in the business that can't write dialogue,stories or compelling characters.The gameplay is mediocre or average at best and Demon's souls showed them how to make a proper combat engine(it's not even worth mentioning boss battles).Leveling system in the Elder scroll is awful and the spellcasting is even worse.Easily some of the worst spell animations I have seen in a AAA game.

Bethesda is easily the worst ranked AAA developer when it come to animations or even 3D engine.They are sloppy or deficient in nearly every aspect,but they are saved since there's hardly any competition in the sandbox rpg genre.

Bioware is superior in every way,but they lack that unique niche as far as creating rpgs(mostly creating pure rpgs with uninspired stories/full of cliche).Mass effect is the closest thing they have as far as unique style of rpg goes since it's a sci-fi/shooter/rpg hybrid.This is one of the reason why Mass effect 2 should get reviews which blow Dragon age out of the water if it's a vast improvement over the original(especially with the console crowd).

Modifié par spernus, 24 novembre 2009 - 01:12 .

[BelgarathMTH]

I hated Oblivion. Level scaling ruint it for me. As an alchemist, I was qualified for about fifth level after I'd barely started. And I knew I couldn't take those levels, because every enemy in the world would be too strong for me with my level artificially inflated by my alchemy.



And then I figured out there was no reason to take a character level, ever. The whole game can be beaten at first level - if you stay first level, so does everything else in the world.



Once I got over the wow factor of exploring the pretty scenery and figured out the lame level-scaling, the game was over for me. Took about a week. After I had played Morrowind for months and loved it. I was so disappointed I wanted to throw up.



DAO is so superior to the hated Oblivion, it makes me laugh to think about it!