I kind of agree. Bethesda progression goes backwards.

Oblivion was riddled with flaws, Morrowind was a huge improvement in every aspect.

Then Daggerfall was a nice combination of the two.

Then, I don't know what they were thinking with Arena.

I guess whether you go forwards or backwards, TES's latest game is a disappointment. :laugh:

It's sickening to think that in Morrowind architectural diversity meant, "do you build your house out of wood or out of living creatures?", whereas in Oblivion it meant, "what color is your roof?"


I'm kind of hoping that this was an intentional marketing ploy in order to ensure Bethesda could solidify their grip over a new generation of gamers and console hardware. Pretty much everything from Arena to Redguard was for those from ye olden DOS days, and Morrowind for all the hip 90s kids. Then game the release of the PS3, 360, and the like - so Bethesda made Oblivion to not only monopolize their greatest franchise across a multitude of platforms, but also to appeal to even more gamers, both young and old - on the basis of its easy, "pick up and play" atmosphere and the shiny graphics.

Fallout 3 is still technically deeper than Oblivion in some regards, and I've not heard one argument from someone who jumped on the TES bandwagon with Oblivion that the game was too hard. I'm hoping that now that Bethesda has an expanded fanbase, they'll be able to make TES V a bit deeper and introduce new concepts - I mean, that's what usually happens in RPG series, right? RIGHT? :confused:

The best case scenario for the future of TES that i can see? The TES series becomes a marketing showpiece of quality of the Bethesda brand rather than a standalone game for maximum profit. I remember when Fallout 3 came out, i'd never heard of the series before, but i saw the Bethesda logo on it, and it certainly grabbed my attention.

Bethesda realises that the short term gain of making TES more mainstream hurts their brand and the long term profits of the publishing empire they seem to creating. Also, spending tens of millions of dollars beyond what is TECHNICALLY needed to make a TES game marketable is probably the best value for dollar advertising that could be bought.

Right, except that's not Bethesda's MO. Which is to appeal to the mainstream crowd each game.

I have a anology with TV shows, pay attention.

A lot of shows try to aim towards a certain demographic, and every time that show's demographic grows up and gets bored of the show, the show will retcon itself to appeal to the new members of that demographic.

Then you have the long-running shows, like South Park. This show, if you pay attention, was immature potty humor for 6th graders when it came out. But then, instead of remaining for kids, it "grew up" with it's original fans.

Bethesda does the opposite of what series should do if they want to run on for a long time. Instead of appealing to its original fans, who are getting older. Each new TES game is aimed at that 15-25 year old demographic, no matter who is filling it at the time. And it pretty much abandons the hopes and expectations of the original fanbase. It's suicide, I promise.

Because they've already turned off their original fans. So the success of each future game is dependent on attracting new fans. They've been successful each time, so far. But it's a gamble and if one major release bombs, then that's it for the franchise.

As I've said before, it costs 5 times more to attract a new customer than to keep an old one. Bad idea to betray the fanbase with each release. Very bad idea.

Yet they do it every single time... :sadvaultboy:

Hamsmagoo is right. Although I disagree with the 15-25 bracket. I'm 15, and Oblivion was a major dissapointment for me. However, he's right on the fact that they're not changing.

I'm saying each game -- Morrowind, Oblivion... each aim for that same demographic.

I'm trying to think of a way to rephrase what I meant. It isn't that games are made for a certain age group, it's just that that particular bracket of ages are the major players of video games. And instead of letting the game speak for itself, and adding upon what they've done in past games, instead, they try to conform to what makes games popular in the here and now. Out of fear, perhaps, that it will be ignored and they will not profit, if they don't.

However, I feel that if the game, itself is a good game, then it will be timeless and, therefore even more popular when it's noticeably different from all the other games around it. Look at every other long-running video game series. Each game follows the same formula, with tweaks to make the interface more user-friendly.

If they want to overhaul the engine, completely, they generally make a spin-off series. This is what Bethesda tried with "Adventures" in order to appeal to the FPS community. Of course it failed, then, because the only people who were fans of The Elder Scrolls were computer gamers who like RPGs.

Now, after Morrowind and Oblivion, the console gaming community knows the Elder Scrolls and Bethesda well, and I bet a spin-off action-RPG series would be very popular. Then, they could bring the Elder Scrolls back to its roots and make a pure, deep RPG.

Or the other way around. They could keep the Elder Scrolls a more fast-paced action-RPG series in the spirit of Oblivion and make a new spin-off series that is pure RPGs. Either way, finally Bethesda can compete in sales with the other top titles, and at the same time, stay true to their hardcoe RPG niche audience, who helped get them on their feet to begin with.

This would be a way better idea than to come up with a bitter-tasting compromise between the two genres that leaves everyone wanting. Which is what I feel they're trying now with that "hardcoe mode" nonsense.

I kind of agree, if you make it good, they will come. Most of the time it is also about marketing and presenting your game in an appealing way, making sure it gets around what your game has to offer.



I've never understood this in the context of TES, TES has pretty much always been an Action-Rpg series, Daggerfall is firmly in the Action-Rpg genre, it practically a dungeon crawler, and you don't exactly play the battle of wits in those dungeons. As far as I know, there has never been changing dialogs in TES if you increase your intelligence, or any other attribute. there has never been a nonviolent path. what are the three purebred characters that all the other characters are blends of, Mage, Warrior, Rogue...That is it. No Chalatan, or Diplomat. As far as I can see, TES has always been rooted in the Action Rpg genre.



I honestly don't know how this hardcoe mode is gonna turn out, so I'll reserve judgment until I can experience it.

If you're going to get all technical about it like that, every RPG in the world in an Action-RPG. Imo, a game is only really an Action-RPG once the action is taking away from the RPGness. TES has been going down the action game route ever since Morrowind. More and more action elements are being implemented, and more and more RPG elements are being removed. Thankfully, Morrowind did help with the additional lore and uniqueness of the game world, though. But, I'm worried we're going to end up the way of Might and Magic: Dark Messiah.

There were multiple solutions to quests in both Daggerfall and Morrowind.

And both those games were all about skill progression, whereas Oblivion is more about reflexes of the player.

The way I see it, an action game is played for the gameplay itself. The combat is based on the player's own coordination and reflexes. An action RPG is basically an action game that lets you choose skills in the beginning. An RPG is a game where the combat is determined by dice rolls, and not by the reflexes of the player, and where they at least try to make all the plausible solutions to a quest do-able.

So, Daggerfall and Morrowind were RPGs, minus Morrowind's main quest. Oblivion was an action-RPG.

I would also argue that Arena was an RPG with a really lame, linear story.

Hopefully, now you understand.

My definition of an pure rpg is an rpg that allows roleplaying and completion with characters of non-violent origin. So a pure Rpg can function as a Action Rpg, but an Action Rpg cannot function as a pure Rpg.



Yes I can understand you, given your reasoning. I see it differently though, not completely but enough to have a different view. For example, nothing stops an action Rpg from having multiple solutions, the recent Alpha Protocol by Obsidian Entertainment is an action rpg with multiple solutions. I also use lesser reflexes in Oblivion than in morrowind, Morrowind only give you the chance to hit, when you hit as a player. This makes it more important that you hit as a player, because otherwise you wont even get the chance to actually hit the enemy, the high damage enhances this even more.

This does not mean that I can't understand your concerns, what you two are describing to me is that the scale between Action and Rpg is sliding towards the action part. To this I agree and share the concern, an example of (rather excellent) Rpg Action games, are Dark Messiah and Bioshock, but I wont agree that Oblivion is anywhere near that level of action Bias, but I agree that one can see the trend.

What marks this trend is basically what you Hircine is describing, the action elements and the world was improved (IMO) in Oblivion, but the Rpg elements were not in an equal sense, improved as well. Indeed it can be argued that they were neclected. Oblivion is still dominatingly an Rpg (IMO), but because the Action elements where improved while the Rpg elements were neclected, the balance has shifted. It wouldn't matter that Oblivion Combat and Physics was improved, if we for example, had retained all of morrowinds weapons and armor, had retained the same diverse path at the level of the great houses, because then the balance would not have been shifted. Indeed if Oblivion had improved those elements with greater diversity, with more ways of defining your character, our discussion and espectations would be very different at this point.

I hope me having shown this level of understanding, will have persuated you two to put the safety back on your flamethrowers, which I suspect I have aimed at me now. :hehe:

I'm no Oblivion expert. I just can't play it. But from what I gather from my limited gameplay, I made this chart:
http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f386/vtastek/morrowind/morrowindmisc/special/uncannyvalleyOblivion.png

some time ago. Note linear games and open world games are not in the same dimension.

I think even the action part was lacking in Oblivion. Action part can get Dark Messiah like with %100 skill scaling. There is fine line between player input and character skills. By selecting FPP, TES is obligated to give something decent in action department. I'm an FPS originated TES player. In FPS games, we always talk about realism. It is funny the realism is in fact with RPG games. This is just combat related. If I can't choose a non-violent act, then it is indeed no RPG.

I think that's a good thing about Morrowind, actually. If you happen to enter such a place and get killed, it means you'll just have to train harder and try again some other time. Also gives you something to look out for; that you can't just blindly walk into every dungeon knowing you can thrash your way through your enemies.

@Electus, that's my favorite part. When I was level one, I charged into the ashlands and a blighted cliffracer killed me. From then on I was horribly afraid. After I leveled up (and House Hlaalu made me) I went to the ashlands. Cliffracers attacked and fell to my blade.

That's way funner than being as strong at level one as a level twenty.

Mass Effect above that far above Oblivion in RPGness? :rofl:

That is probably one of the most biased charts I've seen in my life.

It's a nice scale, not sure if it can be completely placed like that, and I would definitely have placed things differently, but I get what you were trying to describe.



When I say that the action elements were improved, I mean in relation to the TES series , TES action elements still have a long way to go to catch up to games outside of the series. If you can't choose a non-violent path, then I wouldn't necessarily say that it is not an Rpg, it is just not a pure Rpg.

They aren't even on the same line. The author of that chart has made two separate open and linear world lines. Besides, Mass Effect had choices, quite many choices while Oblivion barely had any, it also had ways to avoid fight through dialog, I can't remember Oblivion having that (or at least not as often).

I personal think a more 'action orientated' combat system would be good. With the action of Dark Messiah and the speed (and angle?) of the attack being taken into account to determine damage (along with skill level) as with Mount & Blade TES V could still be a better RPG (as in more RPGish) than Morrowind and Oblivion combined.
As said by Daydark: "a pure Rpg can function as a Action Rpg, but an Action Rpg cannot function as a pure Rpg." So if TES V is a pure RPG (which means, but is certainly not limited to, it has enough alternatives to combat) the action combat only influences the combat, which is only a part of the game. Though Mass Effect is certainly not a pure RPG, the combat is almost full action and all the RPG elements come from the stat system and more importantly the dialog and the choices you can make.

So a combat system with much action but still based on skill (like Oblivion) isn't bad as long as the whole game around it is makes it a great RPG. Culture and politics, great and interesting dialog, choices and consequences (and since it's an open world I could live with it if it didn't have world changing consequences, as long as it has some impact like a certain NPC dying or a certain faction getting more influence in the area) and for me personally quite important: alternatives to combat.
It's certainly not that I dislike combat, I just dislike the fact that it's often the only option (with the exception of some cases where you can use stealth instead). I want to play as a merchant, a diplomat and most importantly a rogue the way Bethesda describes it:
I want to use speech skills and lying as a valid option in many situation, with a sword as a backup in case you screw up. Not a light armor blade character with a useless speechcraft skill as major.

I know they're not on the same line, but they are on the same chart, for the sake of comparison. Or am I just confused on what that chart is supposed to represent?

I guess it might be from a personal standpoint, but Mass Effect felt so much more action oriented than RPGish to me.

Id feel the same way if morrowind auto saved as much as Oblivion.
I want it saved every time I enter a new cell [censored] it!

Don't take it seriously. Also I never played Mass Effect.

The chart suggests, open worlds are more important. Without open worlds the best you can get is Deus Ex. I don't, ever, want to compare open world games with linear ones, in many terms including RPGness. Also RPGness is a relative scale. Notice how I put Stalker and Fallout on intersections. They have limited open worlds and resemble linear games but still Fallout wins with more RPGness. Also violence adds to the action element. Where Stalker's RPG side is a little bland. Oblivion has very high RPGness. Oblivion doesn't lose it in open world terms. It is mainly RPG mechanics. Level scaling(loot, creature), skill thresholds and stuff like that increase Oblivion's RPGness but in wrong direction.

Also I imagine the chart as a sin wave. There is no good or bad. Placements really don't represent anything other than showing mixtures of RPG-action with various amounts.. Comparison is more about why Oblivion feels weird among many of us while it is indeed a very good game and better in many aspects from Morrowind.

"The idea of original uncanny valley is, when your imitation of real life getting better and better suddenly, while it is better than a previous attempt, it ends up being creepy looking thing, alerting us on its shortcoming features which present on previous attempts but not bothered us to this time.

The RPG uncanny valley happens when you get your action to some degree but at the same time your Role-playing elements go the opposite side of spectrum. So essentially I'm saying Oblivion goes to the action side far when its RPGness couldn't match it. This suddenly alerts us on Oblivion's shortcoming features which present on previous attempts but not bothered us to this time. That is the valley, Oblivion fell. Oblivion was a better game in terms of Action but not better in a classic sense of RPG. The equation suggests that it is possible to combine better action and better RPG, which can make TESV and TES6."

i played morrowind,i played oblivion.i LOVE them both.i have spent countless hours in both.but i like oblivion better,it has better combat,epic gameplay, and it feels good to play,people are more realistic.it has better graphics too. but morrowind had more items.epic gameplay.great story.but it lacked in combat and had crappy enchanting.i still love both games though.i play both all the time,but mostly oblivion.shivering isles.FTW!!!!

I think Morrowind had better enchanting personally. Why should you always succeed?

And why should you find a 20% chameleon enchantey thing every time you close an Oblivion gate? I only needed to close 5 gates to be an immortal invisible ninja. :ph34r:

In that case we'd only need a kick skill for TES V. Solves everything!

That's actually a good point, an enemy should figure out that he's being attacked by something invisible and start flailing about, trying to hit anything.

EDIT: Or better yet, NPC's should be able to use sense life.