Judging from the art work in the Morrowind concepts book and descriptions in the first PGE as well as the superb quality of the Knights of the Nine plugin compared to the rest of Oblivion I'd say the creative and atmospheric heavy weights are MK and Kurt Khulman.

I reckon we have to give Todd credit for the gameplay, but that is about it. With Oblivion it seems that atmosphere was sacrificed for something out of a "horse and killing stuff" fantasy world. Which is the whole problem.

Fair enough; I can definitely agree with KK and MK being the true powerhouses behind the stories and cohesion and the thick underpinning feel the world had which was the primary allure. But it still remains that Todd went along with it, no? As project lead, could he not have said, "Actually, instead of all this ALMSIVI stuff, all these twisted takes and unfamiliar backdrops, I'd like to scrap that and have our art team populate Vvardenfell with Tolkein-style forests and Middle-Earth familiarity." I suppose that's what pretty much happened with Oblivion, but we still received Morrowind largely the way that MK et al envisioned, no?

I know that the creativity and atmosphere overshadow gameplay, but even Morrowind's core gameplay philosophy was head and shoulders above Oblivion in terms of how character skill and player skill interact. And even if Todd only gets gameplay credit and gatekeeping credit for granting passage to the true world-builders, that's still infinitesimally more credit than some would give him otherwise.

I agree with that, but I, and many other Oblivion fans, are role-players. Many of Oblivion's fans are also Morrowind fans, fans who make valid points when they criticize Oblivion. Calling Oblivion an FPS or an action game is an overstatement though. Oblivion is still an RPG and it allows plenty of role-playing, like Morrowind. Oblivion relies on more player skill than Morrowind, but it doesn't rely on player skill too much. It isn't like an FPS, where aiming at a certain area could eaisly kill your enemy, regardless of skill level. Damage is affected by skill and not everything is able to be done excellently at lower skill levels. Unlike an FPS, Oblivion also doesn't have fast-paced, "realistic" killing. Killing a goblin in Oblivion is not as simple as just hitting it in the head and watching its head explode. Killing a goblin in Oblivion is actually tedious and far from stimulating adrenaline. TES series has always had hack and slash elements as well as FPS elements, but no Elder Scrolls game(in the main series) has strong FPS mechanics and gameplay. Even without playing an FPS, I know that. Oblivion is still an RPG and it is widely rejected by FPS-only fans. I know this from real life experiences of my own. Oblivion is still widely seen(where I live) as "a nerd's game". It doesn't appeal to FPS-only fans. Oblivion isn't centered around combat. It's not about killing. Having smoother fighting mechanics doesn't make it an FPS. I agree that combat in an Elder Scrolls game should be based more on skill than it is in Oblivion, but Oblivion still isn't an FPS. Nobody praises Call of Duty for an open world, many things to do, and a character creation system. Call of duty is all about killing. FPSs are all about killing. Killing things isn't what made Oblivion stand out to me when I was first looking for it. When I first bought my PS3, I was looking for RPGs, but I couldn't find any, until I found Oblivion. Everything around it was an action game, an FPS, or a racing game, but Oblivion stood out as an RPG. When I first bought it, I read the manual over and over again, amazed at all the options I had for customizing my character. Unlike all my other favorite games, my character in Oblivion would actually be my character, not a separate character a pre-made story(Final Fantasy, Baldur's Gate, Dragon Quest). In comparison to Morrowind, Oblivion has less RPG elements, but in comparison to most other games, Oblivion is still a strong RPG. I had never played a first-person game before I played Oblivion, though. TES series as a whole has hack and slash elements. So, in comparison to Morrowind, I consider Oblivion to still be a good, but slightly less good, RPG. In comparison to almost every other modern game, Oblivion is a diamond in a field of graphite. Lowering Oblivion to the simplicity of an FPS is an overstatement. Oblivion is an RPG, something rare among current games, and it is more complex than most new games(4 years isn't a long time by gaming standards, is it?).

ThatOneGuy,

I believe we understand each other.

Well, I'd continue on your post but I don't like to talk about some people, they never seem to be present in the discussion.

I hate this attitude as well. FPSs didn't originate on consoles and neither did hack and slash games. In your eyes, all consoles players are retarded scum who don't like complex gameplay, right? If you couldn't afford your PC, would you refuse to touch a console? If you couldn't afford your PC, I wonder if you would still harbor such hatred for anyone who plays on a cheaper, easier to set up platform, such as a console. I don't call all PC users elitists, but you call all console users simple and stupid? As soon as I can afford a decent PC, I will buy one, but I can't afford a decent PC, so I am stupid for choosing to play on a platform I can afford, or should I shun all consoles and not play games at all? Which option would you pick?

:laugh: Too true, sir. Too true.





Relativity is a contradiction of logic. Either truth is uniform and constant, or there is no truth. Pick one.


Facts require proof to substantiate them. I may be a PC gamer, but this is laughably ridiculous.

1) Losing control because of input limitations? Ever consider that a game can have massive amounts of options and content without needing a keyboard-full of possible assignable inputs? Ever consider that user input can be consolidated and redesigned (and has in several titles for both PC and consoles) to allow the same complexity of actions with less buttons?

2) - 5) "Consolers complained..." <--- Where is your evidence? Your anolysis? Your links to studies or communications or aggregate opinions of online groups? Where is your substantiation of these purported facts? As of right now, you're combining bare assertion fallacies with repeatedly begging the question.

6) Consoles have fewer options than a PC? OK, I'll give you that; they have better hardware, moddability, and a general freedom of user action regarding software and how to use and control it. Now how does any of those advantages relate whatsoever to a decrease in complexity and mind appeal? Deeper stories, deeper themes, world complexity, all those things, aren't affected at all by the advantages a PC boasts.

7) "Consolers complained about too much missions..." While I'll hand it to you that the console market has been rather starved of open-world games in its past, I once again challenge you to actually provide evidence for your claim that console users as an aggregate whole complained about the game being too open-world. Else, bare assertion fallacy.

I would suggest that you ease away from this tack of argument, 1) because your arguments are incredibly weak and unsubstantiated, and 2) because this is not a "blame all the things that went wrong on the console users" thread. I rather like having a thread like this open for discussion, which it soon won't be if things like this continue.

not if the enemy is at the same height, maybe being on another silt strider, or I imagine it would require a spear specifically for silt strider combat. Who says I will have to do anything to the horse, trying to make it a pet simulator. What the AI would or would not is irrelevant given that this is the game-makers concern not mine. Sure as you say, it would be great, how to implement it is not my problem, I agree that it is not a major thing to implement though, it just seems natural if one is to have mounts at all, or else a reason why not is needed.



No, they complained because they were complicated, not the same. and what keys were lost exactly?



I don't see how this has anything to do with the consoles, you mean that history complexity cannot be on the consoles, not wanted? what is your emperical evidence for this?



Are you refering to morrowind, because combat was not good regardless of platform there, even for an Rpg, and I find Character skills to matter very much in Oblivion, indeed the game can become increasingly hard if you don't take care of your combat skills, that is even a complaint against Oblivion. Because of the way that skills matter in morrowind, it is possible for me to make an argument that in regards to combat, player skill is more important in morrowind than it is in Oblivion.



what a load of crap, removing weapons instead of reworking was a poor decision regardless of platform, you have no evidence to the contrary, indeed ARPG would demand more weapon choices, not less.



yes and no skills were lost between daggerfall and morrowind, oh wait, that must have been console complains from the future. Again where you're evidence that "consolers" would not invest in secondary skills?



Consoles don't have fewer options, they have fewer buttons perhaps, but not nearly few enough to hinter anything.



No they didn't, where's you're evidence. are you talking about diablo 1 and 2, the two games which major platform are PC, and to which only one have been ported? I don't find the world in Oblivion meaningless, there's sideplots and subplots, but maybe I'm not getting what you mean with sideplots and subplots.



It sure is elitist but it's far from fact, lacking any evidence whatsoever. the Mass effect series is a whole other beast than the TES series, but if we must go there, the mass effect series has more dialog choices and Choice and Consequence than most of the TES games, so I'm guessing they laid more weight on other RPG elements, If I can remember correctly the mass effect series is also heavy with subplots and sideplots.

It's funny you don't mention Dragon age, the game where the PC version is not affected by the console version.

Thats where good quest-writing comes in. With this and on a whole the path OB took has pretty much been decided as being, if not negative, then at least less positive. I am curious how you see the difference between OB and SI and OB and Fallout. If you can say the changes in SI and Fallout were better, or possibly even good, than any degradation caused by consoles could be reasonably rectified and this conversation would not need to continue. So what do you think about the SI or Fallout?


Mass effect 1 had a better free world aspect and a more complex equipment and skill system than mass effect 2, as well as a less interesting story/plot/lore due to being number 2 in a 3 part series. I believe that is what he is referring to. If you have not played these games I am going to ask you, honestly as respectfully as possible, to not speak out of your ass.

Also Mordobb, which weapon and skill system did you like more from mass effect. Mass effect 1 had it better for weapons but I'd have to go with #2 for the skill setup, or at least the skill level-up system.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/mannimarco/Guiguizmo91/TheRealMannimarco.jpg

What seems like a neat little story for first time players, is sacriledge (?) for the veterans. God of Worms -> Mannimarco the Wuss being one of the most painfully obvious mistakes. Unless the pic above tells a true story!

My understanding is that the old Mannimarco split into the God of Worms and Necromancer Mannimarco at the end of Daggerfall. Essentially, the result of using the Numidium to become a God, but at the same time, not. If true, it would account for a rather significant and predictable weakening. Much of the power (but not the knowledge, which wouldn't need to split) would have transferred to the God of Worms, leaving behind a normal mortal with unparalleled necromantic knowledge. And, quite obviously, the ability to slowly reclaim some of his former power.

But that's just my understanding of what supposedly happened at the end of Daggerfall.

(side-note: this is why Bethesda will probably NEVER allow the player to dramatically influence the world. Either you invalidate some paths, or you have to pull cosmic pretzel-making stunts to make all outcomes happen)

I have both games, I tend not to speak about games I haven't played. Are you speaking about the the maco driving on different planets, because I never saw ME1 or 2 as being free open world. You must understand that what you think of the story/plot/lore is irrelevant, given that it is an opinion, and if you attribute it to the reason that it's a sequel, you also say that it wouldn't matter what they did about the story/plot/lore, because it will always have been a sequel. ME2 had more consequences to you're actions and even added more consequence to your actions in ME1, I'll take that over inventory any day.

I'll cut to the chase. Maybe a bit with the mako, or maybe the mako just spreading it out with time-consuming frustration, but content in Mass Effect 2 was much less. Scrap the part about lore though, I enjoy ME1 more and I tend to forget about the ME2 story. The lore was great. I guess what I am getting at has to do with the quest/story relationship, equipment options, skill options...options. ME2 was largely a story about a crew where good rp side quests were few, and some were like playing mini-games. The world lacked in good content outside the narrative. It was good, but, restricted. I think this is similar to the drama in OB, though OB had more of the drama. All of the stuff added in the new games was exciting, but, maybe, not quite substantial for a world to rp in extensively. ME1 and MW both had more world content, more quest content, more skill content, and connections that could legitimately occur in the players mind without a quest update telling them so. I always thought that was important for a well developed rpg, if only equally to story.
Its also important he mentioned ME. It was a game ported to pc and it's still declining in overall content.

Here is another point; in ME 1 you could realistically be, for lack of a better term, a jerk of a specter on a power trip for a while.

I'm not saying that there's nothing lost, I personally just feel that they weighed it out with good content in other areas.



Maybe it's just me that saw ME1 as never being Open world, given how TES is open world, I also feel that although ME2 has less in general, it has more quality, kind of like the transition from daggerfall to morrowind, quality over quantity.

But really it was not my intention to go into mass effects changes as much as it was to prove that it was not a consequence of the platform, indeed you did that better with your last line



I've been a jerk in ME 2 as well, they have the whole Shepard going Evil Face if you keep a renegade attitude, which I wasn't much a fan of.

The general reduction in variety and quest content, and the overall shift in emphasis toward player versus character skills, probably have little or nothing to do with the rise of console play, except as symptoms of the same overall trend toward "shotgun marketing" policies instead of targetting a specific market segment. While on the one hand, the policy has the effect of bringing in purchasers from a wider audience, it also makes it less attractive to the "target" market. When there are no competitors, widening the market can pay off; when there's competition, it can drive your disgruntled core fanbase to that competition instead.

The simplification and reduction of the control interface and the consolidation of similar items (axe and blunt skills, long and short blade skills, left and right pauldrons and cuirass into one piece) is very likely a direct result of the lower effective screen resolution and more limited number of controls available on console, as well as the porting of the game from console to PC rather than PC to console. When you can only display 25 lines of text clearly, instead of 40+, with at least 1/3 or more of that chewed up by the surrounding interface's graphical borders, that either requires you to keep a more limited inventory and set of stats or else constantly scroll through 5-10 pages of stuff to find anything. In contrast, the 20-30 little icons visible on Morrowind's PC version inventory screen at any given time were easily identified, with further info available by "hovering" over them, in a resizable box which covered less than 1/4 of the screen. You could resize the box to see more or less without scrolling. I have no idea what the console interface looked like, or how well it worked. In OB, the console-centric interface only displayed around 8 items at a time, regardless of whether you bought it for console or PC, and occupied the entire screen. I don't fault console owners and players for the decision to develop a more "stripped" game from the start, rather than "edit" it to work on consoles, but the end result is certainly NOT to my liking. For the PC-user, Oblivion was like having your "Big Box of Crayons" replaced by a basic set of the 5 primary colors, and then being told that it's all the same, because nobody uses the other colors anyway. Sorry, but something's bothering me too, and it's not just the spelling in this topic's name.

Fair enough, and I'm sorry if that ignorance comment got to you. I guess I was a bit ignorant too.

It's alright, no worries



I don't see the connection between merging weapon types and armor types, and the consoles, I mean Morrowind on the xbox was fine in that regard, and in ME2 you can change pauldrons, chest plates, helmet, thigh armor and gloves, I mean this should not be a problem. And the controls, there's less controls, but I don't see how this goes over into merging weapons, there's no need for different controls for different weapon types, only different animations perhaps.



This I understand completely, the interface should suit the platform, it would be the same as if the text on my HD tv was suited for readers sitting 2 feet from the screen.

Some interesting tidbits from pre-release Oblivion:

- Clashing factions, nobles looking to hire you as they scramble for power in the emperor's absence, the political structure of cities changed over time
- A realistic AI system where people go about their business daily, including attending church on specific days
- A religious faction and an imperial guard faction
- A world much, much larger than Morrowind (because of the terrain generation tools they spent so long on)
- Realistic and diverse environments (again, due to their "advanced" terrain generation tools that their programmers had to go and take geology classes for)
- A music system unlike anything they've done before
- The most realistic bows ever in a game (to spend more time on it they had to get rid of other ranged weapons)
- A large and diverse voice acting cast
- A Cyrodiil just like in Redguard's pocket guide
- Large cities with many inhabitants
- A robust dialog system that fixes all the problems of Morrowind's wiki system (apparently they thought the problem was that Morrowind had interesting information in the dialog)
- Shadows were cast by every object, textures worked to make it look like stones and such in buildings were really 3D
- The first DLC released would implement seasonal holidays with NPCs participating in festivals, selling specialty items, and giving discounts

There are a bunch more but this is what was able to come up with off the top of my head.

Well, the thing about that is that while you are right, and that the massive ambition for Oblivion was unfulfilled, at least the ambition shows that they still have an artistic soul or two on the dev team. So I'm not worried.

Has anyone directly asked Bethesda if OB changes were specifically because of consoles. Is there Q&A or an inquiry system setup directly to Bethesda, any way to effectively ask? Anyway, after that list it just sounds like a large part of the problem was excessive ambition that led to potentially great parts of the game missing the release. With only slightly better results in a new game a few years later.

On that note I think the best rpg set-up would be similiar to, this might sound weird, the dialogged assignment and factional dispositions from MW. The whole thing was filters and player input. Add a great world and maybe just a good story and that would be a fun rpg.

Don't hit your head on the joke.

I have always heard that adept archers can zoom up to 3 times distance after the string has been drawn. http://www.brotherprice.com/ebayphoto/3x%20eotech%20a.jpg, it is realistic.



Edit: Though I don't have a problem with anything self imposed. :facepalm:

Wha...? Do you have a link to confirm this?

Mod an alternative.. I'm sure they're out there as well

Yes, I'm aware, but players shouldn't have to make mods to fix Bethesda's mistakes.

Interesting thread. I like the opposite comments about Morrowind. Especially, the quality over quantity-quantity over quality and canon-no canon comments. It has been called big and small too.

Oblivion is not a bad game. It is essentially the same game as Morrowind. There are some big improvements and some very little improvements and some "a step back" things, that's all. And I don't like the threads like "is bethesda going down a wrong path?", it was just one game. I need at least two games to predict something like that.

What I know is, console "dumb down"/strip down is a bad thing. I think game developers are lying. I am most certain that developing a game for a console is actually harder. Because it is limited in so many ways compared to a PC. So beginning with console in mind first lowers your scope. Then because of limitations, you have to spent more time to find ways to add the things you want. Lot's of time goes for console specific optimizations. You make the game in PCs, why can't you play it on PCs, right? Think about the loss of time.

The second part is bad porting. In this again I blame game developers. A good port can be done. Lack of ingame options is not present in bethesda games, thank god. But they suffer a lot from controls. There is a superiority in computer FPS games. A very distinct feeling you can find in even 14+ years old games. The free movement in 3D space, to able to turn from right to left in a moment. Just play Quake 3, Half-Life. You will see what I am talking about. In Oblivion controls are so [censored] up, I find myself going the other way of my key pressings. What's up with that? I think in porting the original coder is long gone, and the new guy doesn't want to fiddle with somebody else's codes.

Now for Oblivion's mistakes stuff I don't like:
It started with Mournhold. Closed cities. (In fallout there are even road blocks, but I want to think that's a game specific thing) For that they sacrificed levitation. Closed cities looks bad too from outside, even without levitation. This is a chain reaction, that decision changed whole game into a less open world game. And remaining game area somehow feels empty.

It was only cliffracers in Morrowind that drives you mad, Oblivion have more than one equivalents. The only things in the empty world you can interact with. You use fast travel to avoid them, the empty world is now small too.

Diversity, but I don't think any game can reach Morrowind in that area. But a little graphical diversity between areas/regions would be good.

Main quest, "go find my son". Maybe I am a self-centric person. I want the game to be about me. I don't wanna find some other hero and be his sidekick. (I didn't finished the main quest.) I mean I don't want to be the new king, but something more about me and people I choose. Even Patrick Steward can't dictate me in this game. And those Oblivion Gates, am I supposed to close all of them? (I never understood if they are part of main quest or not, my character didn't understand either!) I closed a couple and they were all generic one cell worlds, that appears again and again. I refuse to play a game like that. So that was it, I completely lost my enthusiasm for Main Quest.(I will come back and play it again sometime, I hope.)

I traveled at corners of the world,. And I quit. It was really unfortunate, it has good combat, perfect archery, interesting AI and graphics. But I couldn't find anything keeps me interested.

PS. I am not a big RPG guy more of a FPS guy. But I like non-linear gameplay too. Most of RPG's in this area are using isometric view, especially hack and slash games. Morrowind was nothing like before, so it changed my game perspective forever.

Well technically you could of walked it, it just wasn't practical, didn't the devs brag about it taking roughly two weeks to walk from one end of the map to another?

On that note I do agree with you, if it isn't larger that thirty-five square miles I don't see the point of fast travel to a more interesting Morrowind- like style travel in between cities with horses for shorter trips.

Ha . Oblivion had allmost none of that.