Game Debate: graphics vs. content vs. combat, etc...

[HeyYou]

I don't think he means all of game play.. not in terms of leveling and level scaling... They basically ruin vanilla oblivion when everything is also god like, everything has 10mil HP and wears daedric armor. :unsure:

I think he means the animation engine and how spell failures and the combat system was much less.. um.. everything has more immediate substance in Ob.

 

See, I didn't see it that way. In Morrowind, a low level actually had a chance to miss, or fail whatever it was he was attempting, be it spell-casting, or alchemy, or whathaveyou. In oblivion, there was no such thing as failure. You always succeeded, no matter what you were trying to do.

 

I also didn't care for the combat mechanics. I could see weapon damage being somewhat based on skill, but, TOTALLY? That was just way out of whack. (in my opinion.)

 

I will grant that Oblivion most certainly had better graphics, and somewhat better animations....... and Morrowin, even for its day, was kinda clunky..... but, pretty graphics does NOT make up for all the other lacks that I found in Oblivion. Graphics are really the least of my concerns. Sure, they help, but, they are not the be-all, end-all, of the gaming experience. Even the prettiest game isn't worth the money you spend on it, if it doesn't have an engaging, and is actually enjoyable....... I just saw oblivion as catering more to the pretties, and less to everything else.

[marharth]

I don't think he means all of game play.. not in terms of leveling and level scaling... They basically ruin vanilla oblivion when everything is also god like, everything has 10mil HP and wears daedric armor. :unsure:

I think he means the animation engine and how spell failures and the combat system was much less.. um.. everything has more immediate substance in Ob.

 

See, I didn't see it that way. In Morrowind, a low level actually had a chance to miss, or fail whatever it was he was attempting, be it spell-casting, or alchemy, or whathaveyou. In oblivion, there was no such thing as failure. You always succeeded, no matter what you were trying to do.

 

I also didn't care for the combat mechanics. I could see weapon damage being somewhat based on skill, but, TOTALLY? That was just way out of whack. (in my opinion.)

 

I will grant that Oblivion most certainly had better graphics, and somewhat better animations....... and Morrowin, even for its day, was kinda clunky..... but, pretty graphics does NOT make up for all the other lacks that I found in Oblivion. Graphics are really the least of my concerns. Sure, they help, but, they are not the be-all, end-all, of the gaming experience. Even the prettiest game isn't worth the money you spend on it, if it doesn't have an engaging, and is actually enjoyable....... I just saw oblivion as catering more to the pretties, and less to everything else.

I thought morrowind looked better, sure it had worse texture quality, animations, and older modeling mechanics...

 

It has a better environment though. In oblivion you see grass, trees, hell, or stone. In Morrowind it was more more diverse and more fun to explore in.

[Ghogiel]

See, I didn't see it that way. In Morrowind, a low level actually had a chance to miss, or fail whatever it was he was attempting, be it spell-casting, or alchemy, or whathaveyou. In oblivion, there was no such thing as failure. You always succeeded, no matter what you were trying to do.

 

I also didn't care for the combat mechanics. I could see weapon damage being somewhat based on skill, but, TOTALLY? That was just way out of whack. (in my opinion.)

To a degree, I was happy to see the end of that side of visible dice rolling on the combat mechanic. I think it was moves in the right direction for the most part. The spell failure had its merits imo, except it made you have to weight up a percentage, take into account that number, it's a bit too PnPish. But missing the target you are hitting is stupid. It's one thing to miss, if you miss, or they dodge because they dodged... that swinging and hitting but missing s*** had to go man.

 

There are solutions though, that didn't really exist or were viable to develop at the time of Ob, that can do something to the animation system, that took the control more out of the players hand and put into the skills area, while still remaining fluid and not so frustrating. That is definitely the much more complex and difficult route to develop, and as we might agree on they weren't up for that task at the time. We are only seeing it start to evolve now in Skyrim. All that dodge parry miss effects will kinda make a return, probably through perk selection.

 

I think the sense of putting the control directly into you avatar in the game more so than what is going on in the numbers in you stats menu is a good direction of the TES series. Granted it has been too ambitious in Ob, and that is why it failed for me, it just wanted to communitcate something that the technology they used couldn't allow. those the principle is spot on, and that is what has made Todd probably one of my top 5 game developers ATM.

 

I actually dislike D&D game mechanic cloning in RPG video games. After playing F3 and realising how little a role attributes played after the introduction of perks, I'm not even worried about the number game very much this time. I am so glad BGS did F3 now..it's saved a lot of bad or less than good choices being carried out in TES5.

Edited June 11, 2011 by Ghogiel

[JimboUK]

What do you need multiple monitors for?

To play multi monitor gaming of course. Video games are eye candy.

 

You asked why people spend loads of money on high end systems and not just buy a mid range system, and that is why, for 3d and multi monitor gaming. Like you say and I know even on cheap mid range hardware you can play most games of this generation at 1080 max settings. excluding only a handful of games that cater to enthusiast markets. (baring multi monitor and 3d gaming)

 

This is my point, graphics are important, if they weren't we wouldn't spend the money we do on all the eye candy. Those who spend a fortune on hardware and then say graphics aren't important are not being honest with themselves.

[marharth]

What do you need multiple monitors for?

To play multi monitor gaming of course. Video games are eye candy.

 

You asked why people spend loads of money on high end systems and not just buy a mid range system, and that is why, for 3d and multi monitor gaming. Like you say and I know even on cheap mid range hardware you can play most games of this generation at 1080 max settings. excluding only a handful of games that cater to enthusiast markets. (baring multi monitor and 3d gaming)

 

This is my point, graphics are important, if they weren't we wouldn't spend the money we do on all the eye candy. Those who spend a fortune on hardware and then say graphics aren't important are not being honest with themselves.

I spend money on hardware since its required for the game to run smoothly due to the graphics. I don't care about the graphics at all, I need a good system to play the other parts as the game since the graphics are there.

[HeyYou]

See, I didn't see it that way. In Morrowind, a low level actually had a chance to miss, or fail whatever it was he was attempting, be it spell-casting, or alchemy, or whathaveyou. In oblivion, there was no such thing as failure. You always succeeded, no matter what you were trying to do.

 

I also didn't care for the combat mechanics. I could see weapon damage being somewhat based on skill, but, TOTALLY? That was just way out of whack. (in my opinion.)

To a degree, I was happy to see the end of that side of visible dice rolling on the combat mechanic. I think it was moves in the right direction for the most part. The spell failure had its merits imo, except it made you have to weight up a percentage, take into account that number, it's a bit too PnPish. But missing the target you are hitting is stupid. It's one thing to miss, if you miss, or they dodge because they dodged... that swinging and hitting but missing s*** had to go man.

 

There are solutions though, that didn't really exist or were viable to develop at the time of Ob, that can do something to the animation system, that took the control more out of the players hand and put into the skills area, while still remaining fluid and not so frustrating. That is definitely the much more complex and difficult route to develop, and as we might agree on they weren't up for that task at the time. We are only seeing it start to evolve now in Skyrim. All that dodge parry miss effects will kinda make a return, probably through perk selection.

 

I think the sense of putting the control directly into you avatar in the game more so than what is going on in the numbers in you stats menu is a good direction of the TES series. Granted it has been too ambitious in Ob, and that is why it failed for me, it just wanted to communitcate something that the technology they used couldn't allow. those the principle is spot on, and that is what has made Todd probably one of my top 5 game developers ATM.

 

I actually dislike D&D game mechanic cloning in RPG video games. After playing F3 and realising how little a role attributes played after the introduction of perks, I'm not even worried about the number game very much this time. I am so glad BGS did F3 now..it's saved a lot of bad or less than good choices being carried out in TES5.

 

See, I grew up on PnP games. I was a BIG D&D player. In that game, it was all about character skill, as it was in morrowind. In oblivion, it was more focused on player skill. I didn't care for that aspect, and I absolutely hated the minigames. The security, and speechcraft skills became useless.

 

Most of the folks that had issues with the Morrowind combat system echoed your sentiments though..... watching your sword pass thru your opponent, and do no damage was a rather common complaint. I could give that a pass though, just because I was conditioned to the die-roll/character skill aspect of it all.

[JimboUK]

What do you need multiple monitors for?

To play multi monitor gaming of course. Video games are eye candy.

 

You asked why people spend loads of money on high end systems and not just buy a mid range system, and that is why, for 3d and multi monitor gaming. Like you say and I know even on cheap mid range hardware you can play most games of this generation at 1080 max settings. excluding only a handful of games that cater to enthusiast markets. (baring multi monitor and 3d gaming)

 

This is my point, graphics are important, if they weren't we wouldn't spend the money we do on all the eye candy. Those who spend a fortune on hardware and then say graphics aren't important are not being honest with themselves.

I spend money on hardware since its required for the game to run smoothly due to the graphics. I don't care about the graphics at all, I need a good system to play the other parts as the game since the graphics are there.

 

Why not lower the settings and save the money?

[marharth]

What do you need multiple monitors for?

To play multi monitor gaming of course. Video games are eye candy.

 

You asked why people spend loads of money on high end systems and not just buy a mid range system, and that is why, for 3d and multi monitor gaming. Like you say and I know even on cheap mid range hardware you can play most games of this generation at 1080 max settings. excluding only a handful of games that cater to enthusiast markets. (baring multi monitor and 3d gaming)

 

This is my point, graphics are important, if they weren't we wouldn't spend the money we do on all the eye candy. Those who spend a fortune on hardware and then say graphics aren't important are not being honest with themselves.

I spend money on hardware since its required for the game to run smoothly due to the graphics. I don't care about the graphics at all, I need a good system to play the other parts as the game since the graphics are there.

 

Why not lower the settings and save the money?

Quite a lot of games will still require a good PC to get a playable FPS, even with the lowest possible settings.

[Ghogiel]

Why not lower the settings and save the money?

 

He's never going to say it.

 

So I will, because it looks like s***. :tongue:

 

it's like watching that grainy ass cinecam movie vs a HD bluray

 

See, I grew up on PnP games. I was a BIG D&D player. In that game, it was all about character skill, as it was in morrowind. In oblivion, it was more focused on player skill. I didn't care for that aspect, and I absolutely hated the minigames. The security, and speechcraft skills became useless.

 

Most of the folks that had issues with the Morrowind combat system echoed your sentiments though..... watching your sword pass thru your opponent, and do no damage was a rather common complaint. I could give that a pass though, just because I was conditioned to the die-roll/character skill aspect of it all.

I started RPGing as a youngster in the 80s. More a table top gamer, I did play D&D once, and did play Masquerade and white wolf with a few friends in the 90s. but I was quite happy to eventually see movements in the genre that brought the video game RPGs out of that D&D stagnation. Over the years there have been several awesome RPGs on the PC that broke the mold from that, and others that stayed true to PnP and carried the genre. I think as a whole and the future I want to see the TES series tread new ground and do new things. Each time.

 

Anyway, yeah in MW I was certainly fine with the dice rolls, ect. And it didn't bother me nor was it a complaint of mine. However it would have bothered me in Oblivion. I am sure of that. The direction was sound, just Ob kinda swung and missed big. mini games sucked ass.

 

F3 has shown some addressing of the way they handle this part of game dev, mostly it is all positive, if Ob was handled like that it would have been a whole other game imo. A better game. And the mini games were better too. and the persuasion and intimidate is all skill based, no mini game crap

 

Anyway it is the nature of evolution of the genre. In respect to TES, as long as they focus on the> you can be anyone and do anything sandbox rpg. I think it will remain a forerunner in the evolution of the genre. I think my interest in the series has continued this long because I am never likely to play a MW 2 or OB 2( :ohdear: scary thought!)

Edited June 11, 2011 by Ghogiel

[Deleted472477User]

Just out of idle curiosity, which game did you play first?

 

 

Morrowind, but I've been playing TES games since Arena, so I might be a bit spoiled :D

 

Been playing CRPGs in general since 1988.