Well if you only played ESIV for half an hour that means you didn't make it out of the sewers so there's little wonder you didn't pick it up again because that part is crap.
Apart from Patrick Stewart's death scene.
Really you have to spend a couple of hours for the game to suck you in.
So I decided to fire up oblivion again...
Débuté par
Ulous
, janv. 27 2010 07:23
Retour en haut
#52
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 02:15
Sidney
-
- Members
- 5 032 messages
relhart wrote...
I don't disagree, but limited as it was, it was still light years ahead of anything DAO has in terms on nonlinear gamepay, and character freedom. I like both games for what they are, but both have things that could have been much better about them.
Oblivion is non-linear because you don't play the plot - which is linear. DAO has a non-linear story to play through, Oblivion just a world that overall isn't very interesting. FO3 is so much better than Oblivion it hurts to ponder but even that has a rigidly linear story progression masked by a big dangerous world you can epxlore at your whim.
The worst part is that Oblviion's world is so small it slaps me in the face over and over with how silly it is. There's a huge evil temple roughly 20 feet from the backdoor of a farm not to mention changing cultuers and climate zones in about 5 minutes of travel.
#53
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 02:19
Rkaar
-
- Members
- 20 messages
I finished Oblivion once but I got too bored with it to finish the extensions. I have played both KOTOR games and Jade Empire and found them GREAT. DA: O is excellent, I am expecting the expansion with hunger and even considering getting the Mass Effect games. And the SWTOR game. BioWare does great work with its rpgs.
Modifié par Rkaar, 28 janvier 2010 - 02:20 .
#54
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 02:19
Gunny5821
-
- Members
- 424 messages
What, NO one has played RISEN? Come on.......................
#55
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 02:24
Glorfindel7
-
- Members
- 54 messages
Very, very different style games. Comparisons are fraught with issues, not least that everyone believes that their personnal preferances represent absolute factual truth.
Depends how one wants to cross the country (analogy alert). DA:O is a jet. You get on on one coast and get off on the other. You don't get a whole lot of say on the route but the journey can be very pleasant. DA:O is, say, business class on Singapore airlines, an experience so pleasant that one doesn't notice the complete lack of macro options, focusing instead on the micro options (Shiraz or Cabernet?). The world size is two airports with a dotted line connecting them (I really get tired of DA:O fans saying how small the OB world is, which may be true, but DA:O is miniscule). Any feeling of size in DA:O comes from the horrible loading times between the few actual places in Ferelden. There is NO world in DA:O, just some independent scenes where the interactive movie is played out.
Oblivion is a camping trip across the country. Choose what to do and where to go every day. Not nearly as pleasant a journey and not to everyone's tastes. But a great way to see the country.
I enjoy both styles of games; but I had played OB a lot before starting DA:O and will be playing it long after I stop playing DA:O. To be perfectly fair, I play OB with all the FCOM main and associated mods plus about 180 others. These mods address a lot of the whinges one hears (many times justifiably) by those who prefer DA:O or plain don't like TES games on this forum. If you haven't played OB with FCOM, UL, Wrye's textures (2 GB! mod), SI, all the DLCs, especially KotN, and a bunch of other content mods, then you haven't given OB a fair shake. Mods don't count, you say! Why the heck not?
Depends how one wants to cross the country (analogy alert). DA:O is a jet. You get on on one coast and get off on the other. You don't get a whole lot of say on the route but the journey can be very pleasant. DA:O is, say, business class on Singapore airlines, an experience so pleasant that one doesn't notice the complete lack of macro options, focusing instead on the micro options (Shiraz or Cabernet?). The world size is two airports with a dotted line connecting them (I really get tired of DA:O fans saying how small the OB world is, which may be true, but DA:O is miniscule). Any feeling of size in DA:O comes from the horrible loading times between the few actual places in Ferelden. There is NO world in DA:O, just some independent scenes where the interactive movie is played out.
Oblivion is a camping trip across the country. Choose what to do and where to go every day. Not nearly as pleasant a journey and not to everyone's tastes. But a great way to see the country.
I enjoy both styles of games; but I had played OB a lot before starting DA:O and will be playing it long after I stop playing DA:O. To be perfectly fair, I play OB with all the FCOM main and associated mods plus about 180 others. These mods address a lot of the whinges one hears (many times justifiably) by those who prefer DA:O or plain don't like TES games on this forum. If you haven't played OB with FCOM, UL, Wrye's textures (2 GB! mod), SI, all the DLCs, especially KotN, and a bunch of other content mods, then you haven't given OB a fair shake. Mods don't count, you say! Why the heck not?
#56
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 02:31
RedSocialKnight
-
- Members
- 87 messages
Glorfindel7 wrote...
(I really get tired of DA:O fans saying how small the OB world is, which may be true, but DA:O is miniscule).
Is this true? I am trying to reckon it in my mind. Dragon Age, with its separate areas, has a lot of land that is present as a 3D vista but can't actually be traveled through -- I guess the visual sense of there being stuff in the distance may be causing me to overestimate the square footage.
But the fact the DA feels a lot bigger than it really is while Oblivion feels a bit small is not a point against Bioware's world-building abilities -- quite the reverse.
[edit: I should emphasize that I love both companies and both games. But in making such a big leap in graphical capability, Oblivion was forced to retreat a bit from the very things that make the Elder Scrolls games special -- the sense of real discovery that comes from just wandering freely through a vast environment. In a narrative game like Dragon Age, the exploration aspect is just sauce -- for Bethesda it's the dish itself.]
Modifié par RedSocialKnight, 28 janvier 2010 - 02:41 .
#57
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 02:38
ToJKa1
-
- Members
- 1 246 messages
Ulous wrote...
After playing DAO to death and then to death some more I decided to take a bit of a break from it, while still in the RPG mood I decided to blow the dust off my copy of oblivion c/w all the add-ons and expansions. Now this is where DAO really shines for me, because it has basically made oblivion feel average at best in my opinion, I re-played oblivion for about half an hour before I couldn't stand it anymore, everything I thought I loved about the game has now gone.
It's the opposite for me, i'm done with Dragon Age for now, but (heavily modded) Oblivion endures. I must say though that the "Story" of Oblivion really blows compared to Dragon Age, still the large open area, respawning enemies (and i dare say the level scaling helps too), and dozens of ruins and caves keep me playing it. Not to mention Shivering Isles with more of that with completely different setting.
#58
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 03:13
Glorfindel7
-
- Members
- 54 messages
Well Monica, you and illerianna may have smoked the peace pipe, but I was not a signatory to the treaty. Sunrise, sunset; the immutable pattern of life, except in Ferelden, which has no sun (or moon, or starry sky, or thunderstorms that scare the (insert analogy of choice here) the first time (and many times there after). If you have never stood on a beach and watched the sun rise (or set, depending on coast) or stood somewhere just to admire the brilliant vista before you - well then you'll love DA:O 'cause none of those things exist. Time wasters all. On the other hand, if you have, and your avatar does as well, then you will find a great big gaping hole in the excellent game that is DA:O. A hole that does not exist Oblivion. Just because it isn't scripted doesn't mean it has no value.
#59
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 03:24
Anomaly-
-
- Members
- 366 messages
Monica21 wrote...
Wow, that's exactly what I said! No, wait, it isn't. The difference with Alistair's rose is that it has a context and it's part of the story. It creates emotional attachment to that character and to your PC meaning that it will color your responses and how you handle certain situations. There's a difference between your character connecting with companions and the player connecting with an unresponsive world.
Just one thing I'd like to say about that quote. The beauty about a game like Oblivion is that you can have moments like that mean whatever you want them to, as opposed to DA:O where it is done for you.
That's essentially what it all comes down to if I compare the two. I absolutely adore both games, for different reasons. I could spend hours going over what makes them different, and what one does better than the other, but I will just say this to give a very general idea. DA:O was wonderfully put together, and I would say that I probably enjoyed my first playthrough of it more than my first playthrough of Oblivion (or, for that matter, anything else in recent memory). However, after my first playthrough of DA:O I find myself much less enchanted with it. The advantage of how well the game is put together, the quality of the storytelling, and the fleshing out of the characters is that it gives a superb experience. However, because that experience was molded together so tightly, it remains (basically, aside from some good/evil/indifferent choices) the same through subsequent playthroughs.
Oblivion, on the other hand, lost its appeal very very slowly because of the fact that I could play it completely differently anytime I wanted. Sure, the story, characters, and overall package were not as polished as DA:O, but at least I don't have to go through the same story and events, knowing everything that happens each time I play.
They are both excellent games in their own right. I am not knocking either. I also wish that someday we could see a game that combines the best aspects of both, but the funny thing is (because of reasons I outlined above) its kind of a conundrum. Instead of arguing which one is better, or taking shots at either, I will just continue to enjoy them both for what they do best.
Edit after seeing this post:
Depends how one wants to cross the country (analogy alert). DA:O is a
jet. You get on on one coast and get off on the other. You don't get a
whole lot of say on the route but the journey can be very pleasant.
DA:O is, say, business class on Singapore airlines, an experience so
pleasant that one doesn't notice the complete lack of macro options,
focusing instead on the micro options (Shiraz or Cabernet?). The world
size is two airports with a dotted line connecting them (I really get
tired of DA:O fans saying how small the OB world is, which may be true,
but DA:O is miniscule). Any feeling of size in DA:O comes from the
horrible loading times between the few actual places in Ferelden. There
is NO world in DA:O, just some independent scenes where the interactive
movie is played out.
Very well put, and I couldn't agree more. I also get the feeling that DA:O is tiny by comparison, though I do wish Oblivion was bigger. I also couldn't agree more about the mods. I've played so many mods for Oblivion (and made many of my own) that I would have easily got my money's worth out of the game even if I had paid 10x what it cost. Its true that the DA:O modding community is young, but I would have to say the above analogies apply to the differences in modding both games, as well.
Modifié par Anomaly-, 28 janvier 2010 - 03:31 .
#60
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 03:26
errant_knight
-
- Members
- 8 256 messages
Bibdy wrote...
Its been rather humbling to witness first hand how difficult it is to replicate even 5 minutes of play-time in the toolset of the quality of the main DA:O product. The amount of attention to detail is pretty remarkable, particularly in the cutscenes and dialogue. All of the facial animations, camera angle shifts, unimportant characters animating and fidgetting in the background, even down to the eye movement and where the character is looking at various moments, on top of the awesome voice acting. It all comes together to really bring the game to life.
Heh, I haven't even managed to make a new level and area from scratch yet. I suspect bitter tears will be shed when I start trying to animate characters.
Side note: I'm pretty new to RPGs, so...what is this KOTOR of which you all speak? Would I like it?
Modifié par errant_knight, 28 janvier 2010 - 03:30 .
#61
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 03:26
DOHdragon2009
-
- Members
- 10 messages
Um... well.
So I guess my small and simple point was that there's a more fully realized external world in Oblivion. There is the concept of time, for instance, and seasons, and weather, and so on. They went to alot of trouble to make the place as functionally complete as possible. So, if you want to watch a sunset (because they are amazingly beautiful and worth noticing simply as a technical achievement if nothing else) or walk off into the woods with no other purpose than to explore the landscape or slaughter everything you see, you have that option. Wandering is fun, and I enjoyed that aspect of that game. I mean, you could get lost if you wanted to. On the other hand, Dragon Age has a much more tightly wound narrative and the game world is a series of "sets". It would seem to me that this makes DA able to deliver a story and characters more effectively. I mean, you have limited choices by necessity. That enables a level of focus but restricts the players options. It's just a quesion of style. From a development standpoint there's no reason why you couldn't have both, and as each of these companies raise the bar we are probably going to end up with a game like the one I describe. They are not mutually exclusive, and I imagine a person who like one would like the other (I do). I was just looking around and I saw this thread. Since I have them both running at the moment and I can switch between them, I wanted to offer a comment.
If you have ask why - in the context of a RPG - a character would stop to watch a sunset, you don't really get it at all. They have their own reasons. Mine do it because they see it's beautiful, and it gives them pause.
So I guess my small and simple point was that there's a more fully realized external world in Oblivion. There is the concept of time, for instance, and seasons, and weather, and so on. They went to alot of trouble to make the place as functionally complete as possible. So, if you want to watch a sunset (because they are amazingly beautiful and worth noticing simply as a technical achievement if nothing else) or walk off into the woods with no other purpose than to explore the landscape or slaughter everything you see, you have that option. Wandering is fun, and I enjoyed that aspect of that game. I mean, you could get lost if you wanted to. On the other hand, Dragon Age has a much more tightly wound narrative and the game world is a series of "sets". It would seem to me that this makes DA able to deliver a story and characters more effectively. I mean, you have limited choices by necessity. That enables a level of focus but restricts the players options. It's just a quesion of style. From a development standpoint there's no reason why you couldn't have both, and as each of these companies raise the bar we are probably going to end up with a game like the one I describe. They are not mutually exclusive, and I imagine a person who like one would like the other (I do). I was just looking around and I saw this thread. Since I have them both running at the moment and I can switch between them, I wanted to offer a comment.
If you have ask why - in the context of a RPG - a character would stop to watch a sunset, you don't really get it at all. They have their own reasons. Mine do it because they see it's beautiful, and it gives them pause.
#62
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 03:27
Bibdy
-
- Members
- 1 455 messages
And while the Oblivion devs were busy building that massive landscape, weather effects and day/night cycles, company B was busy building a games with deeper, non-linear stories, developer C was writing characters with some actual depth and developer D was designing a more refined combat mechanics and character development system. Big whoop? People have different tastes. They're jobs are to make a product and get you to buy it. If you end up buying a game from all 4 companies, then everybody wins. Every developer is right. You're down $150 and kept yourself entertained by playing your way through 4 different games. Good for you.
I didn't find the wide-open world the least bit interesting once, after the 5th consecutive Aleiid ruin, I realised that they're just tile-pieces slapped together with some randomly generated baddies (scaled to your level! OH GOD, NOT THE LEVEL SCALING! /sarcasm) and treasure in there, none of which advance your character after a certain point, so its all just money grinding.
Would you really compare the depth of DA:O's story and non-linearity with that of fricking Oblivion? My lord, that story was dreadful, and there was only 1 or 2 quests per town to get involved in. Mods add more content to the game, give it more life and make it much more visually appealing? So? Give it 3 years on the market and DA:O will have a whole plethora of FREE user-generated mods and content for you to enjoy, too, so that's not a fair comparison, whatsoever.
Compare the two games, out of the box, and DA:O is definitely my kind of game. Getting to run around a big sandbox of hills and vistas is nice and all, but the novelty wore off for me too quickly. There was nothing in that game which kept me engaged beyond a single playthrough and using cheats to run blazing fast and leap 500 feet in the air, just so I could do some exploring without spending hours doing it. And in all of that exploring? Nothing out there of any interest, really. Tons of pre-made tileset caves and such, with the aforementioned randomly generated monsters and loot and some different tilesets used in the empire for a snowy area, a swamp, a lush lake, a coast, some hills and such, and that's about it.
Bethesda like to sacrifice substance for sandbox. Bioware does it the other way around, sacrificing sandbox for substance, and I definitely prefer it that way.
The silly thing is, its like the people that argue that one of these games is better than the other hasn't quite realised that they bought BOTH and that both developers feel like they did their job right. Which is fair, because you bought them both, so obviously they both did something right, and appealed to your tastes of both types of game.
I didn't find the wide-open world the least bit interesting once, after the 5th consecutive Aleiid ruin, I realised that they're just tile-pieces slapped together with some randomly generated baddies (scaled to your level! OH GOD, NOT THE LEVEL SCALING! /sarcasm) and treasure in there, none of which advance your character after a certain point, so its all just money grinding.
Would you really compare the depth of DA:O's story and non-linearity with that of fricking Oblivion? My lord, that story was dreadful, and there was only 1 or 2 quests per town to get involved in. Mods add more content to the game, give it more life and make it much more visually appealing? So? Give it 3 years on the market and DA:O will have a whole plethora of FREE user-generated mods and content for you to enjoy, too, so that's not a fair comparison, whatsoever.
Compare the two games, out of the box, and DA:O is definitely my kind of game. Getting to run around a big sandbox of hills and vistas is nice and all, but the novelty wore off for me too quickly. There was nothing in that game which kept me engaged beyond a single playthrough and using cheats to run blazing fast and leap 500 feet in the air, just so I could do some exploring without spending hours doing it. And in all of that exploring? Nothing out there of any interest, really. Tons of pre-made tileset caves and such, with the aforementioned randomly generated monsters and loot and some different tilesets used in the empire for a snowy area, a swamp, a lush lake, a coast, some hills and such, and that's about it.
Bethesda like to sacrifice substance for sandbox. Bioware does it the other way around, sacrificing sandbox for substance, and I definitely prefer it that way.
The silly thing is, its like the people that argue that one of these games is better than the other hasn't quite realised that they bought BOTH and that both developers feel like they did their job right. Which is fair, because you bought them both, so obviously they both did something right, and appealed to your tastes of both types of game.
Modifié par Bibdy, 28 janvier 2010 - 03:32 .
#63
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 03:36
Khaznar Rahsok the Master Bater
-
- Members
- 4 messages
RedSocialKnight wrote...
The world in Oblivion is really quite small -- to me it felt smaller than DA:O feels, although I wouldn't swear to the square footage.
Certainly, it's much smaller than the previous Elder Scrolls game, Morrowind. Oblivion really was about bring a graphic upgrade to the series -- and for its time the graphics were amazing.
But the depth of the world did NOT compare to DA:O or to Oblivion's own predecessor in the series.
I look forward to the next Elder Scrolls game having the beauty of Oblivion combined with the sheer size of Morrowind.
And even for a non-linear game, Bethesda could learn from Bioware in terms of writing NPCs that feel less interchangeable.
Oblivion is actually quite a bit larger than Morrowind. Around 16SqMiles compared to just 9SqMiles. The reason why you feel the game world is smaller, is because of the faster travel, horses, instant travel etc, and the longer draw distance, and no fog. Perception is a weird thing.
Most of the complaints towards Oblivion were from people who first experienced Morrowind and then went on to Oblivion. The first installment of any gaming series is almost always fondly remembered. Go back and play Morrowind and you'll see just how "lifeless" the world really feels, without mods.
#64
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 03:36
Khaznar Rahsok the Master Bater
-
- Members
- 4 messages
RedSocialKnight wrote...
The world in Oblivion is really quite small -- to me it felt smaller than DA:O feels, although I wouldn't swear to the square footage.
Certainly, it's much smaller than the previous Elder Scrolls game, Morrowind. Oblivion really was about bring a graphic upgrade to the series -- and for its time the graphics were amazing.
But the depth of the world did NOT compare to DA:O or to Oblivion's own predecessor in the series.
I look forward to the next Elder Scrolls game having the beauty of Oblivion combined with the sheer size of Morrowind.
And even for a non-linear game, Bethesda could learn from Bioware in terms of writing NPCs that feel less interchangeable.
Oblivion is actually quite a bit larger than Morrowind. Around 16SqMiles compared to just 9SqMiles. The reason why you feel the game world is smaller, is because of the faster travel, horses, instant travel etc, and the longer draw distance, and no fog. Perception is a weird thing.
Most of the complaints towards Oblivion were from people who first experienced Morrowind and then went on to Oblivion. The first installment of any gaming series is almost always fondly remembered. Go back and play Morrowind and you'll see just how "lifeless" the world really feels, without mods.
#65
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 03:48
Anomaly-
-
- Members
- 366 messages
Bibdy wrote...
I didn't find the wide-open world the least bit interesting once, after the 5th consecutive Aleiid ruin, I realised that they're just tile-pieces slapped together with some randomly generated baddies (scaled to your level! OH GOD, NOT THE LEVEL SCALING! /sarcasm) and treasure in there, none of which advance your character after a certain point, so its all just money grinding.
I'm not really going to disagree with you, because you're not really wrong. However, I can just as easily say that all of the outdoor 'environments' in DA:O all feel like the same outdoor room with different objects in different places. Take Lothering for example. Beautiful looking when you first get to it, but then you might get the urge to explore down the stream or go climbing through the hills. Unfortunately you can't, because they're all artificial borders which tend to make you feel even more like you're stuck in an outdoor room.
As you said yourself, though, they are different games catered to different audiences. I consider myself fortunate that I'm able to greatly enjoy both.
Khaznar Rahsok the Master Bater wrote...
Most of the
complaints towards Oblivion were from people who first experienced
Morrowind and then went on to Oblivion. The first installment of any
gaming series is almost always fondly remembered. Go back and play
Morrowind and you'll see just how "lifeless" the world really feels,
without mods.
Actually, Morrowind was the third installment in the series. Also, I remember
fondly how many of the same people had many of the same complaints
about Morrowind when it came out, comparing it to Daggerfall.
#66
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 03:52
Haranalee
-
- Members
- 34 messages
I recently replayed Mass Effect to help myself get over my acute DAO addiction and I was amazed at how much Bioware expanded the companion relationships in DAO from where they were in ME. I mean, I loved ME and thought it was well-crafted and had great NPC interactions, but there was *so* much more dialog and interaction with party members in DAO (to my delight -- it makes the game so much more immersive, and satisfying), it was amazing to see. Of course, I can't get enough of that, so I hope this is a sign of things to come 
#67
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 04:17
Wicked 702
-
- Members
- 2 247 messages
errant_knight wrote...
Heh, I haven't even managed to make a new level and area from scratch yet. I suspect bitter tears will be shed when I start trying to animate characters.
Side note: I'm pretty new to RPGs, so...what is this KOTOR of which you all speak? Would I like it?
Knights of the Old Republic (Star Wars) - Buy it, play it, enjoy it. You won't be disappointed. /truth
#68
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 04:26
errant_knight
-
- Members
- 8 256 messages
Wicked 702 wrote...
errant_knight wrote...
Heh, I haven't even managed to make a new level and area from scratch yet. I suspect bitter tears will be shed when I start trying to animate characters.
Side note: I'm pretty new to RPGs, so...what is this KOTOR of which you all speak? Would I like it?
Knights of the Old Republic (Star Wars) - Buy it, play it, enjoy it. You won't be disappointed. /truth
I'll do that, thanks!
#69
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 04:31
Monica21
-
- Members
- 5 603 messages
I've stated previously in this thread that my opinion is in the minority of Oblivion players and I still know that's true. However, my opinion is still as valid as yours. My character watching a sunset is meaningless in an RPG because my character has no response to it and neither does anyone else. My real life experiences of watching a sunset are completely irrelevant. The only response is in the player's mind and that's the difference and my entire point. It's not goal-oriented, your avatar is just standing there. The reaction you create is in your own mind and that's what I call virtual LARPing. If your character isn't getting any feedback from the ingame world to what you, then the only thing the player is doing is admiring graphics. There is no story to the sunset, it's just an artificially created environment. You cannot create your character's reaction, you can only pretend that your character has a reaction.Glorfindel7 wrote...
Well Monica, you and illerianna may have smoked the peace pipe, but I was not a signatory to the treaty. Sunrise, sunset; the immutable pattern of life, except in Ferelden, which has no sun (or moon, or starry sky, or thunderstorms that scare the (insert analogy of choice here) the first time (and many times there after). If you have never stood on a beach and watched the sun rise (or set, depending on coast) or stood somewhere just to admire the brilliant vista before you - well then you'll love DA:O 'cause none of those things exist. Time wasters all. On the other hand, if you have, and your avatar does as well, then you will find a great big gaping hole in the excellent game that is DA:O. A hole that does not exist Oblivion. Just because it isn't scripted doesn't mean it has no value.
To me, that's the complete opposite of DA. Your character interacts in the world in such a way that it responds to you. I'm too busy interacting with the ingame world to care about what time of day it is. The ingame world responds to my actions as do the characters. The decisions I make have an effect on the game. There are difficult decisions to make. I can say the wrong thing and lose an ally or say the "right" thing give and ally the wrong impression. DA is my preferred style of gameplay, and as I stated, I understand that it's not everyone's. As for the comparison to Alistair's rose, that event happens once during the game and to me, that gives it even more meaning. If he gave me flowers whenever I wanted then it wouldn't be the same. In Oblivion I can see a sunset whenever I want, so the meaning is lost.
#70
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 05:25
Peeker2009
-
- Members
- 108 messages
I guess not many people here have played the Gothic series. Personally, I see it as a better example of an open world kind of game than any of Bathsheda's, all of which I have finished at one time or another. Don't get me wrong I did enjoy those titles a lot also. But in Gothic, there is absolutely no level scaling, the game world is massive (Gothic 3 especially), and every area is crammed with nooks and crannies.
Gothic has it's faults undoubtedly (eg, sometimes things may have been lost in the translation from German), though there is a new 900mb patch for gothic 3 that is supposed to be excellent. I just can't afford to download it yet lol. I don't mean to spruik here, just adding another game into the mix. I do wonder though what they could have achieved if they had had anything like the budget of Bioware or Bathsheda.
Anyway, I like to have my character do everyday things. I think it strengthens the bonds between us. For example, if I've just taken him through an adrenalin pumping battle, we can both relax for a moment. The sun has gone down, we are both a little tired, so I lay him out on a bed, while I sit back for awhile with a cup of tea (or a beer as the case may be). The sun comes up, and we are both ready for the next adventure.
If, I don't feel like saving or conquering the world (you can do either) for a bit, I can go hunting for a while or collect pretty flowers. And then I can make some pretty cool stuff with what I find. Or I can just enjoy the scenery, which is beautifully rendered btw. I also enjoyed the acrobatics and the swimming, though sadly these were largely removed in Gothic 3 (no idea why). Then when I am ready I can declare war on a whole town if I wish. The story is always running along, just at the pace I want it to.
btw, I love having to use torches or a glowing staff to illuminate dark caves and grottoes. Strange eh?
Having said that, I love the character interaction in DA:O, there is nothing quite like it in any other game, including BG 1 and 2 to my mind, though I thoroughly enjoyed those games too. DA:O's main story is very good also imo.
However, I too would like to see gaming companies learn something from eachother, rather than just say "this is what we do, and that is what they do", or bring up the apples and oranges comparison. If Bioware goes too far along their own path, then they are possibly heading towards interactive movies, while Bathsheda may be heading towards an MMO model. I am not very interested in either extreme. But that's just me.
Anyone else care for a little apple in their orange juice?
Gothic has it's faults undoubtedly (eg, sometimes things may have been lost in the translation from German), though there is a new 900mb patch for gothic 3 that is supposed to be excellent. I just can't afford to download it yet lol. I don't mean to spruik here, just adding another game into the mix. I do wonder though what they could have achieved if they had had anything like the budget of Bioware or Bathsheda.
Anyway, I like to have my character do everyday things. I think it strengthens the bonds between us. For example, if I've just taken him through an adrenalin pumping battle, we can both relax for a moment. The sun has gone down, we are both a little tired, so I lay him out on a bed, while I sit back for awhile with a cup of tea (or a beer as the case may be). The sun comes up, and we are both ready for the next adventure.
If, I don't feel like saving or conquering the world (you can do either) for a bit, I can go hunting for a while or collect pretty flowers. And then I can make some pretty cool stuff with what I find. Or I can just enjoy the scenery, which is beautifully rendered btw. I also enjoyed the acrobatics and the swimming, though sadly these were largely removed in Gothic 3 (no idea why). Then when I am ready I can declare war on a whole town if I wish. The story is always running along, just at the pace I want it to.
btw, I love having to use torches or a glowing staff to illuminate dark caves and grottoes. Strange eh?
Having said that, I love the character interaction in DA:O, there is nothing quite like it in any other game, including BG 1 and 2 to my mind, though I thoroughly enjoyed those games too. DA:O's main story is very good also imo.
However, I too would like to see gaming companies learn something from eachother, rather than just say "this is what we do, and that is what they do", or bring up the apples and oranges comparison. If Bioware goes too far along their own path, then they are possibly heading towards interactive movies, while Bathsheda may be heading towards an MMO model. I am not very interested in either extreme. But that's just me.
Anyone else care for a little apple in their orange juice?
#71
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 05:50
adam_nox
-
- Members
- 308 messages
oblivion and DAO are close competition, but very different games. If you didn't like oblivion after playing DAO, it's just because they are different and you weren't used to it. It's also somewhat dated.
Fallout3 is easily the best rpg of all time though. It's bethesda's greatest achievement. The amount of detail and content and playability in that game dwarfs every other game out there. Sadly so does it's number of bugs.
Fallout3 is easily the best rpg of all time though. It's bethesda's greatest achievement. The amount of detail and content and playability in that game dwarfs every other game out there. Sadly so does it's number of bugs.
#72
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 05:50
Peeker2009
-
- Members
- 108 messages
Monica21 wrote...
My character watching a sunset is meaningless in an RPG because my character has no response to it and neither does anyone else. My real life experiences of watching a sunset are completely irrelevant. The only response is in the player's mind and that's the difference and my entire point. It's not goal-oriented, your avatar is just standing there. The reaction you create is in your own mind and that's what I call virtual LARPing
Do other people call it virtual LARPing? Could you please explain what this means?
If you try too hard to define the parameters of "RPG" then I think you are bound to invite disagreement. Who says that to be a "real" RPG a character's reactions must all be externalised? Or that everything my character does must have a direct bearing on the story? I am playing a role, and the best RPGs (opinion only) allow me to flesh out my character the way I want to.
Therefore, if I see my character as having a poetic sensibility (a warrior/poet if you like), then watching a beautiful sunset, or admiring a full moon (Ah Apollo...) is enhancing my role-playing experience and not just wasting time. Just because I also like to see these things myself, doesn't mean my character has to necessarily avoid them. In other words, role-playing doesn't mean you have to leave your own personality behind. Not in my book anyway.
And that book is probably the original AD&D players handbook, a game where character development and individuality was seen as probably more important than any of the stories he was involved in. Modules came and went, whereas characters evolved over years.
Modifié par Peeker2009, 28 janvier 2010 - 05:52 .
#73
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 06:01
Abriael_CG
-
- Members
- 1 789 messages
Glorfindel7 wrote...
(I really get tired of DA:O fans saying how small the OB world is, which may be true, but DA:O is miniscule).
Not really, there's actually quite a big explorable area in DAO. But the most important part is that every corner of that area is built with manical attention to detail, and beautiful to see.
Oblivion's world is not only small, but also drab, empty and massively recycled. If it wsas just procedurally generated it wouldn't be much worse.
Oblivion is a camping trip across the country. Choose what to do and where to go every day. Not nearly as pleasant a journey and not to everyone's tastes. But a great way to see the country.
This would be true if there was anything worth sightseeing in the country, but nothing from out of the box oblivion is worth seeing or exploring. The world is empty, dull, and very much lifeless. Anything that's worth seeing in oblivion has been made by modders, and bethesda can take absolutely no credit for it.
And since DA:O has a much better base to start from, and a much more powerful toolset, one year from now modded DA:O will obliterate modded Oblivion hands down.
Not that it doesn't on most of the squares of the checkboards already.
Modifié par Abriael_CG, 28 janvier 2010 - 06:05 .
#74
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 06:10
Fexelea
-
- Members
- 1 654 messages
I actually liked Oblivion quite a lot and found the exploration to be lots of fun. There are a lot of side quests to be done and redone, and the world felt huge because I never bothered with a horse.
I think it is a matter of personal taste, in the end. Oblivion felt better for some things, DA for others. I like em both.
I think it is a matter of personal taste, in the end. Oblivion felt better for some things, DA for others. I like em both.
#75
Posté 28 janvier 2010 - 06:19
Koor
-
- Members
- 3 messages
[quote]relhart wrote...
The thing about Morrowind and Oblivion, is that they are more about exploring and adventuring than they are about a linear story line.[/quote]
The problem about this whole "exploration" horse that bethesda's fans beat to death every time is that for exploration to be fun there has to be something interesting to explore.
Bethesda's "worlds" (more like small regions, given their lilliputian size) don't really have anything to explore. All the dungeons are the same (just the same tiles rearranged), all the keeps are the same, all the caves are the same, with no real lore to them and a few generic enemies slapped inside.
Honestly, i don't feel the drive to "explore" something that has no real lanmarks to speak of...
[/quote]
That may be true for Oblivion, but is definitely not true about Morrowind. The beauty of Morrowind was that there were so many easter eggs and hidden areas in the tombs/caverns/shrines. Many such locations had unique lore items tied to them, which were easy to miss. Levitation and "detect magic item" spells would lead you to some fairly interesting places that typically held the skeletons of former adventurers who had met a terrible fate. Alot of times those adventurers were wearing unique equipment, or had journals on their corpses that gave you insight into their lives. Everything was loving handplaced by some developer who took pride in his product. If you were ballsy enough, as a level 1 you could snag some pretty incredible loot by heading to such places, and that's something I loved about Morrowind. There were hundreds of such areas to explore. If you were to only play through the main quest, you'd not even reveal half of the surface map.
Oblivion, however, was all about the eye-candy. All gameplay was dumbed down. There were less skills, less spells, and less world. Some genius had the idea that all locations needed to have "leveled" creatures and encounters. For some reason they felt the players would prefer not to have powerful objects hidden around the world for brave lowlevel characters to quest after. They felt that the game would be better if all the loot given to you, and everything you fought matched your level so that you'd randomly get decent gear everywhere you went, but only of the appropriate level. For me, Vanilla Oblivion was unplayable. There was no sense of adventure. It was like having your mother holding your hand and leading you through dungeons giving you generic loot that you don't care about.
Don't just lump Morrowind in with Oblivion. Sure Oblivion was a decent game, it was nothing compared to Morrowind. Well, the AI was better, and the cities did feel more alive.. but that's about it.
The thing about Morrowind and Oblivion, is that they are more about exploring and adventuring than they are about a linear story line.[/quote]
The problem about this whole "exploration" horse that bethesda's fans beat to death every time is that for exploration to be fun there has to be something interesting to explore.
Bethesda's "worlds" (more like small regions, given their lilliputian size) don't really have anything to explore. All the dungeons are the same (just the same tiles rearranged), all the keeps are the same, all the caves are the same, with no real lore to them and a few generic enemies slapped inside.
Honestly, i don't feel the drive to "explore" something that has no real lanmarks to speak of...
[/quote]
That may be true for Oblivion, but is definitely not true about Morrowind. The beauty of Morrowind was that there were so many easter eggs and hidden areas in the tombs/caverns/shrines. Many such locations had unique lore items tied to them, which were easy to miss. Levitation and "detect magic item" spells would lead you to some fairly interesting places that typically held the skeletons of former adventurers who had met a terrible fate. Alot of times those adventurers were wearing unique equipment, or had journals on their corpses that gave you insight into their lives. Everything was loving handplaced by some developer who took pride in his product. If you were ballsy enough, as a level 1 you could snag some pretty incredible loot by heading to such places, and that's something I loved about Morrowind. There were hundreds of such areas to explore. If you were to only play through the main quest, you'd not even reveal half of the surface map.
Oblivion, however, was all about the eye-candy. All gameplay was dumbed down. There were less skills, less spells, and less world. Some genius had the idea that all locations needed to have "leveled" creatures and encounters. For some reason they felt the players would prefer not to have powerful objects hidden around the world for brave lowlevel characters to quest after. They felt that the game would be better if all the loot given to you, and everything you fought matched your level so that you'd randomly get decent gear everywhere you went, but only of the appropriate level. For me, Vanilla Oblivion was unplayable. There was no sense of adventure. It was like having your mother holding your hand and leading you through dungeons giving you generic loot that you don't care about.
Don't just lump Morrowind in with Oblivion. Sure Oblivion was a decent game, it was nothing compared to Morrowind. Well, the AI was better, and the cities did feel more alive.. but that's about it.
