perfectly put and I'm glad Bethesda's stance reflects this.

I actually can't think of any respected Single-player devs who don't try to weed out gamebreaking exploits/bugs or glaring balance issues.

This is called bad game design and bethesda are against it. it stops people from using certain game elements due to their exploitive nature. It becomes a problem when you say "just don't use it" to too many facets.

... ever heard of Hamburger Hill?


... anyway... funny how this works.. someone posts "this is an exploit" and all of the sudden, it is an "exploit".

I didn't know that was still done. I thought it was only during my lurking days.

And some people have enough will to take stairs instead of an elevator.

I'm not sure why some people are leaping to the conclusion that those who want lots of freedom and room to experiment are the same who later complain about those games being too easy. Even IF those are the same, it's likely they're upset that even without exploits the game is too easy. You can assume this because the people who want freedom are also saying if there's an exploit in the layers, DON'T use it. So, I doubt they'd be the ones to complain about a game becoming too easy due to exploits.
As others have said, if there is a way to limit exploitation without sacrificing freedom, that's clearly the best option. Next best is to leave it alone, if the exploit isn't an "I win" spell or any other overly exaggerated example some folks are using. The last resort should be removing a feature. Tweak, first.

My point wasn't that I don't want to read the guides about exploits, my point is that I don't want the exploits to be there in the first place! You're avoiding the point I was making, which if you'd actually read it, is reasonable- I dont want an end-game where I have an invicible character, I want there to be a challenge for me even at the 300 hour mark. 100% chameleon and 100% damage reflection shouldn't have made it into Oblvion, for example, and I hope they're on top of keeping game-breaking mistakes like that out of Skyrim.

I think you're forgetting something.

You did not know how to do those things your first time through.

It wasn't until you had already explored the whole game world that you know how to enchant, potion, to certain locations...

:P

I don't see these as problems at all. I see them as big, shiny, beautiful pluses that most games do not reward the player with. In fact, the most you get for learning the layout of a game is a credits screen.

Freedom for the win.

Yes, absolutely - they should work to remove actual bugs.

But obscure power combos that some people think are too strong? Eh.... again, as I said before, unless the game throws them straight in your face so you can't avoid them? They're not much of an issue.






....

I'm sorry, but I just don't see it. Perhaps it's just a personality or playstyle thing, but... I assume I must have made a chameleon suit once, to try it, in one of my various plays of MW and OB. But not more than once, because it seems like it would be really boring.

I certainly don't wander through the game, thinking constantly "well, crap... I could be 100% chameleon right now. Must resist temptation!" Didn't occur to me when I got the 20% cham ring in Shivering Isles. Didn't occur to me when I finally used the 25% cham scroll that you get near the beginning of the game (I forget about that thing most of the time, and end up selling it many levels later).

And this is as a player who tends to use Sneak skill on my characters.

So, no..... I just can't put myself in your shoes, because I just don't think/play that way. :sadvaultboy:


(most of my armor tends to get enchanted with either Shield & Fire Shield - because I pick armor by appearance, and some of the nicer looking mod armors I use aren't terribly strong; or Feather, because I'm a packrat, and there's no such thing as "enough carry weight". )

Then again, with a few A.I. improvements, 100% chameleon could be quite reasonable. I mean, the real problem was the stupid reactions of NPCs/creatures to a 100% chameleon-ed player. Just a little something I wanted to mention...please carry on.

Yeah improving the enemy AI is one way to fix that problem, I definitely agree. It'll be interesting to see how clever our adversaries are in Skyrim.

... I also like this "oh, if it is there, I HAVE to use, therefore it needs to be removed from the game"...

Here's one for you: the only time I used magic in Oblivion, was when the tutorial told me to try it the first time, and 1 or 2 quests where I had to use it... other than that, never...

Here is another: I never use 2-handed weapons, bows, or maces. The only time I used a bow in Oblivion, was on the one quest you have to use the bow to kill that dude for the Dark Brotherhood. Other than that...

Sure, there are times in the game where using magic would've been easier, or gotten me out of trouble but hey, I am either a sword and shield guy running head first int, or a dagger-weilding stealthy conniving backstabber.

Oh, and I use fast travel after I have run around the map and almost completely removed the fog of war. Take THAT!

When I play a quest that annoys me, sometimes it is handy to have a chameleon suit.
Why should I be forced to go through that dungeon again and again only to get to a boss who drops something on death?

Why, after the 50th time around, cant I just skip that and go straight for the Dagoth?

As was said a few posts previous, it takes extensive amounts of game knowledge to even discover these kind of mechanics.
Sure, everyone can go online and look it up, but since there is no stopping that end, it shouldnt be a factor.
This is truly an issue of dont look it up then. Most sites have: Warning spoiler ahead, for a reason.

I saw the vid on beating Morrowind in 16 min that was posted on another thread here.
You know, Ive played Morrowind for eight years now and that avenue would never have occured to me.
I say kudos to that gamer, he is 'for the win'.

Why should such things be removed when it takes a mind angled in a certain way coupled with extensive knowledge of the game to do that?
I dont read game mechanics or spoilers on any game I buy. If I get hopelessly stuck, ill google a specific.
By the time I think I know it all Ill maybe look up what others have done. But Im not going to spoil my own fun by internetting exploits as soon as I get it, and I do not think games should be restricted just because everyone can just look up what other people have wrangled.

In Morrowind I discovered that potions stack after I had it maybe a year.
I never looked a single thing up in Morrowind except for the seven graces part where you have to drown yourself. Im glad I looked it up, wouldnt have figured it out in a million years.
I found alchemy out because of an ingame book where a character inadvertently boosts his own intelligence through brewing the wrong potion.
The next two weeks I was over the moon. I made all sorts of wacky stuff. Including things id regret, cause long duration massive levitation means you get stuck a lot.

The general point here is that I dont think such things should be stunted or restricted because people can just look em up, bypassing what otherwise would need oodles of game experience, and then claim the game is broken.
There is more than 'Just dont use it'
There is also 'Just dont google it.'

Well, I'm happy for you if it didnt bug you, all the better for your experience I don't think of it as a temptation, because I never wanted to use it. It was just this fact sitting in the back of my mind while encountering a scenario that would be made a lot easier utilizing it. When presented with problem x, in a balanced game I would have options a and b. Once I learned that I could easily have 100% camo without effort, I now had option c to bypass the problem. It wasn't a constant thought, but it kind of lurked there. It didn't end up in my playstyle, but it detracted from my enjoyment of what I did do. I don't want the ability to turn on a godmode built within the game.My point was that these sort of issues can be solved easily without any detriment to a player like you who doesn't even notice them. My other example of the rock invincibility is probably a better example. In Oblivion, I often ended up running from enemies for a little bit. Quite regularly, I ended up on a rock where the enemy couldn't reach me and it just stood there waiting to be killed. At this point I, as the player, had to intervene and make the conscious choice to jump off the rock so that the enemy could attack me. I wasn't attempting to exploit the game, the game just ended up being broken in that regard purely by playing it. My character was running from this animal, and then had to choose willingly to jump into its jaws. These are the type of bugs that I think Beth should expend effort getting rid of. In the case of chameleon, purely because the solution is simple, and in the case of the rock problem because normal gameplay shouldn't lend itself to exploitation.

Obviously this is a game, but the developers never intend to make you invincible
This was certainly the aim of Oblivion level scaling. The thing I dislike about this idea is that only a certain number of character builds, the ones that are levelled as per the 'arms race' mechanic, are viable. If I create a humble mage type character, one who picks ingredients, studies alchemy, and uses the profits from selling their potions to finance the further study of magic, I very soon discover that my character is a dead duck much beyond level 5, if not before. The attempt to fix perceived exploits has totally eradicated my freedom to play a character I would enjoy.

Morrowind was the exact opposite in this respect. By deliberate design it allowed all character builds to eventually become invincible. It appears that many see this as a bad, or even stupid decision (irony 1), but it was a compromise (a very essential compromise 2), that allowed every possible character build from power gaming warrior though humble mage to (almost) pacifist healer, to exist in the world and go on to fulfil their destiny. At this point you probably think I'm talking out of my backside, so, a little quote from Morrowind Lead Designer, Ken Rolston:




< taken from http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/357/357232p1.html A full index of the pre-release interviews can be found at the bottom of this page: http://rpgvault.ign.com/articles/357/357980p1.html >

(irony 1)
When I play a video game, I want to feel like I am using the available powers to their full potential while struggling to become the best I can be, not that I am consciously limiting my actions to maintain that balance

Morrowind was designed primarily as a RPG, as such it caters to an audience that revels in compromise and choice and self imposed character based restrictions. Morrowind sold quite well, and still sells well according to Amazon, and was released on XBox and between the two platforms found a whole new audience, an audience with different play styles and expectations to those of the original game design. It would appear that many members of this new audience loved the game, or parts there of, so much that they wanted to level and level and kill and explore indefinitely, and when they found their character to be a god they complained by the score that the game was broken. Irony indeed.

(a very essential compromise 2)
Deus Ex is legend for level design that supports all possible character builds, Fallout 1, 2 and New Vegas also deserve mention as does Bloodlines and others I'm sure. The problem with designing multiple solution quests is cost: writing, implementation, testing, it all adds up. Here Morrowind compromised, some may say cheated, and instead of splashing the cash on multiple solution design the game simply ensured that every possible character design would 'get there eventually'. I know nothing of the development budget, but when I look at the detail the devs placed in the world I consider the compromise to be worth while.

Conclusion
Freedom vs Exploits? Ignoring obvious game bugs, even the humours ones, I think the argument comes down to target market and play style. By level 10 my humble mage may find herself totally at odds with the game, but after years of diligent study she can wield magic of a power found only in legends. This is what many here are calling exploit but to my mage, to my game it is the very essence of survival and something I do not exploit to game breaking proportions. A game that allows such flexibility is inclusive of many play styles, the drawback being that some will have to exercise restraint in order to maximize their enjoyment. A game devoid of such flexibility more likely favours a single play style, the style around which the game has been balanced, the drawback being that some are now totally excluded. It would be sad, after 10 years, to still find myself excluded.

would putting a 70% cap on chamaleon/reflect/absorb really ruin the game for you and end all "freedom" as you know it?


i doubt %99.999 of people would notice except for the few who used it to cheat. if you wanna be invisible use the invisible spell instead of cheesing the system.

But on the reverse of your point does leaving it at 100% really ruin the game for others because they know they can always get it and be invincible, even if they don't get it? I like others have said, have done most of the glitches before, just to see them in action or because I was tempted. But having 100,000 gold and 100% chameleon isn't fun to play, at least not for very long. I think that things that can break the game (For some reason within 50 hours of playtime after getting unlimited money through the Dorian glitch my savegame would corrupt or just get really slow. I tried other discs, doing different things afterwards (including one file that I did nothing for 2 hours at a time until it also bugged), such as duplication, bypassing the main quest, and stuff like that should be fixed but other things should be fine the way they are.

It all depends on how you look at it. I would notice that you couldn't get them, but I wouldn't really care.

fyi: for those who don't know, you can get 100% Reflect Damage, 50+% Reflect Spell (or vice versa on these two effects), and 30% Chameleon all at once without enchanting any gear, and you still have 4 slots of equipment that you can enchant. So it's not like a "You have to go out of your way to get it" thing all the time, any of these can be 100% gotten by a mixture of quests and random chance.

I care about what is possible in MY game, not others' games. There should not be lore and immersion breaking exploits in MY copy of the game. Bethesda agrees. They are removing said issues for Skyrim.



Yes. I should not be able to become invincible.



Things like that are things easily fixed by the devs. Once those are gone, no one will miss their absence, aside from those noticing there aren't stupid lore-breaking/immersion-breaking exploits.



Again, yes. Avoid silly exploits in game making=a better game.


I don't see how there could be an argument FOR game-breaking exploits. Anyone who can come up with one, please post it or PM me. Also, keep in mind Bethesda has already stated they're cracking down on removing those bs exploits for Skyrim.

Balance within reason. Being maxed out at level 100 should give you the feeling of being a master or maybe even a near god. But other things at lower levels which allow weak characters to pwn or level up faster than you should be able to should be axed. Its an action rpg, but its still an rpg. If you get into the mind of any stealth character who happens to be pretty good at chamelion spells...that assassin wouldn't even consider not using a 100% chamelion spell. The thought of using a 70% just to be fair wouldn't even cross their mind.

Basically, you shouldn't have to step out of character to make sure you don't abuse the system. Any archer with a head on their shoulders would use the highground. Any mage who knew how to make a god spell would very happily make that spell and use it frequently too. The vanilla game should shoot for being a believable rpg. It should be built in favor of being able to stay in character as much as possible.

Regarding the rock, I always considered it a legitimate part of the game. What else is the purpose of acrobatics, if not to elude less agile enemies? I think some enemies should have been a bit more skilled in climbing or jumping. It would have been nice if enemies were aware of their disadvantage and fled instead of becoming pincushions. But like enchanting and other skills, the best response to imbalance is improvements in enemy tactics and responses. Not removal.

I can't think of any easy way to stop exploits without limiting freedom, but IMO, freedom always trumps exploits. I liked Morrowind more than Oblivion for a few reasons, but a big one was that it had more freedom. If you don't like exploits in a game, then don't use them, however limiting freedom effects everybody negatively.

I was just playing Oblivion, and took a break and figured I'd see what was going on here.

The character I'm playing at the moment was about to set out for Malada, and I figured she was due a weapon upgrade, so she went to Rohssan's and bought a Mirondil Light Warhammer (a nifty one-handed hammer from Andragorn's http://www.tesnexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=11124), then headed over to the Arcane U to enchant it. She used a great soul, and put 12 points each of fire, frost and shock on it, plus soul trap. That left a few points over, so, on a whim (since she's done KotN and has access to the effect) she added 25 points of drain speed.

It only took a fight or two to realize that that was a gamebreaker. On all but the fastest opponents, that 25 points of drain speed was enough to stop them in their tracks, so they pretty much just stood there and let her kill them.

As soon as I figured that out, I restarted with the save I'd made right before enchanting the hammer, and did it again, that time without the drain speed enchantment.

I relate that to make this point - as long as there are options in a game, there will be ways to exploit those options. I'm fully capable of avoiding exploits on my own and have no desire to see Beth remove options just because other people don't have the willpower to not exploit the game into pointlessness.

That said though, I have little doubt that Beth will do just that. Even more than Oblivion, I expect this game to be aimed squarely at the lowest common denominator.

yes , this is exactly what i wanted to say

I dont usually learn of a games exploits until at least my second play through anyway.... I actually kind of like having them in game.

Dupe item glitch ftw. If you dont want to cheat, dont. I dont see how it can ruin anyones experience by simply being an option.

Why do people say this, you're supposed to say "you couldn't care less", seriously if you COULD care less then you're suggesting you do care about what you're saying. Seriously people need to stop saying this as it's completely non sensical for what their trying to convey.

Irregardless, i could care less about your grammer pet-peeves. Anyways, let me drink my expresso and toast some toast

I think what people are trying to say when they use that phrase, is "As if there was something else I COULD care less about." It may seem to have the opposite meaning that is intended, but that is not entirely correct. Its more a matter of context and how you read it.

This is something that has been heavily debated in world wide and especially American literature. I could care less vs. I couldnt care less. The consensus? Both phrases have the same meaning.