Oblivion sucks

[redbaron]

Re: best RPG?

A need to box people into very certain, clear cut categories is definitely a J trait. Such people seek closure in debates with definitive statements. i.e. "You are bad at video games.

Ironically all this discussion is pretty much you making definitive statements about things, whereas other people are offering alternative ways of looking at it.

I don't think you're reading what I wrote, but on the chance that I'm not communicating clearly enough, I'll try again. I didn't have any problem staying alive in Oblivion in general. Frankly at the point in time when I quit, I was Guildmaster of the Thieves Guild and had the black cowl. So clearly I know how to get through a lot of stuff. I could kill ogres and trolls with melee and deadly potions no problem, because I had actually evolved as a sort of alchemist / Nordic fighter / thief sort of thing. My ability to hang tough in combat wasn't at issue. The problem is, I get to some stupid Ayelid ruin with a wraith at the bottom of it, and this nearly dead wraith totally PWNs me in close combat. When I only needed a few blows of a silver mace to finish it off! At that point I decided this game was just out to grief me. It didn't care what my level or power was, it was always going to throw something gratuitously harder at me, that would kill me for capricious reasons I'd never be able to deduce. Leveling in the game is a complete waste of time, they just decide you're gonna die anyways.

Yes, because you're not skilled enough to handle the difficulty spikes.

Thing is, I even hate scaled levelling too. Not because it means I can't get powerful though, but because it means my enemies are never powerful enough. It's also crap for immersion: "why is it that my enemies are balanced to exactly my level all the time?"

And as I said, I didn't play that. The default is EASY. I played NORMAL. Which should give one a normal level of challenge IMO, not a cakewalk. A pack of 5 wolves when you only have 1 Barbarian and 1 Wizard in your party is not a remotely fair fight. You will die. And I got into that fight, because they had done something interesting to make me think it was worth walking off the main road in that direction. The message was, "We didn't balance any of this, we're gonna punish you for wandering around and exploring." So I said to hell with this, I was only demoing the game anyways.

What's a, "normal" level of challenge to you? It sounds like your version of, "normal" is other people's version of, "cakewalk". I'd have been delighted to discover 5 overpowered wolves at that point in the game. It'd give me 2 possible outcomes:

- Can I actually beat them with just what I have? if I think so, I might try half a dozen times and experiment with different abilities, tactics and whatnot to see if I can (or how close I can get) beat what initially seems like an 'overpowered' encounter. It's often not as bad as it seems.
- If I think I can't, it's still a positive. I know where I'm coming back after I level up and/or a few advancements in gear - right to the spot I know I couldn't deal with before, just to see if and how I can now.

The message isn't that the game is unbalanced, it's that, "we expect you to adapt or learn to survive." You don't like adapting or having to learn in games, so you don't like it. That's fine, although it does make me wonder why you pick up some of these games that are built around you adapting and learning and then complain about being made to adapt and learn.

 

[bvanevery]

Re: best RPG?

its because of people like you that most games are like that, you should feel bad

I'd probably kick your ass at any tactical wargame you'd care to name, so I really don't think you know what you're talking about regarding difficulty. It is entirely possible for games to throw capricious things in the player's direction, and I object to that. It seems other people don't.

 

[bvanevery]

Re: best RPG?

The message isn't that the game is unbalanced, it's that, "we expect you to adapt or learn to survive."

There is surely something like a Bartle type to describe the kind of player you are, but I can't think of a categorization off hand. Seems you revel in the minutiae of combat systems when presented the slightest opportunity to do so. Like you think wonking about all the possibilities is the entire point of the game. Whereas I see it as a disruptive timewasting experience that is hindering me on some other journey, by wasting my real wall clock time. Playing the same content 2..3 times because it necessitates save-load gets old, especially when I've seen it in so many games over so many years.

I think we basically don't agree about what kind of continuity of combat experience should be offered to a player. You don't seem to care about it at all. Random enemy snipes you in the back of the head and you never even see it, sounds like you'd be perfectly good with that. Even look forward to it.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Oh gosh, this is getting silly. Playing the typology card on Bronto and then using bartle types to depreciate RedBaron.

CC, Bronto plus bvanevery. Stop your insults if you wish this thread to stay on topic and remotely constructive.

Posts moved from Best RPG because it's a continuation of Oblivion Sucks.

 

[Hadoblado]

Bvanevery, I don't think you're necessarily bad at computer games - but your approach doesn't seem to work for particular things. Notably, when you experience specific types of difficulty, you reject the challenge. Most people are similar in this regard (I know I am), but the challenges people are willing to accept differ. Like RB, I fucking love figuring out how to beat impossible odds. There's actually a cave near the wolves you speak of containing a bear, that I fought... many, many times. I think I did eventually give up in the end, and waited for the quest to come up to send me back there.

Err... Anyway... It seems like you experience frustration with particular things. Your disc snapping, preoccupation with 'wall clock time', your dismissive attitude. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think it's necessarily anything to do with your actual ability, just your level of engagement with these elements. I do think you're wrong to dismiss these elements the way you do however. As previously mentioned, Pillars of Eternity caters to a specific demographic that it does not seem you are part of. It's rated very highly by the people that prize the elements you so despise, so your criticism of the designers:

There's a point at which you realize your game designer <-> player contract is not being respected and is not likely tenable. I reached that point with PoE fairly quickly. The UI was really slow, they were wasting my time with a gratuitous crippling + lack of direction on what to go on for a solution, then they kill me. So later for that.

The way game designers end up doing that sort of thing, is they've played their own game for so long, they've forgotten what it's like to approach it as a new player who doesn't have knowledge of the game yet. It takes a rather deliberate 'QA' mentality to approach a game 'fresh' that way.

feels misplaced. They really hit the nail on the head with this game. The community wanted exactly the thing that PoE is. It has value, even if you don't value it.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Re: best RPG?

I'd probably kick your ass at any tactical wargame you'd care to name, so I really don't think you know what you're talking about regarding difficulty. It is entirely possible for games to throw capricious things in the player's direction, and I object to that. It seems other people don't.

Yeah I'm sure you would, I haven't played any tactical wargames.

I get the point you're making as well. It's just that it's not applicable to the game because its supposed to be that way.

 

[bvanevery]

I have decided that in titles that ask for a high degree of player investment building towards an outcome, i.e. RPGs, I hate having my real wall clock time wasted. I don't want permadeath, I want the exact opposite, permasave! I don't think I should have to lose 20..60 minutes of real work just because I can't be bothered to babysit the Save menu every so often. I see RPGs in some ways like word processing, and the various mishaps in the game, like someone yanking the plug to my computer.

So that's what I'll do in my own games and damn everyone else. Then they'll hate me for not giving them their hardcore experience. And I'll defend it by saying I designed it that way deliberately, and no, you don't get a choice how the game works in that regard. Some will scream bloody murder, others will say finally, someone who gets what it means to have a real life!

I'm also fed up with different visual quality settings and different difficulty levels. They won't happen. You will get The One True Experience of the game designer, me. Why? Because when there's choice, the alternate play paths don't get tested, and the experience turns to shit.

Frankly I can think of a zillion ways to make something HARD in a game, that don't have to do with throwing out a player's work. Adventure games didn't throw out your work, they were still HARD.

 

[Cherry Cola]

I have decided that in titles that ask for a high degree of player investment building towards an outcome, i.e. RPGs, I hate having my real wall clock time wasted. I don't want permadeath, I want the exact opposite, permasave! I don't think I should have to lose 20..60 minutes of real work just because I can't be bothered to babysit the Save menu every so often. I see RPGs in some ways like word processing, and the various mishaps in the game, like someone yanking the plug to my computer.

So that's what I'll do in my own games and damn everyone else. Then they'll hate me for not giving them their hardcore experience. And I'll defend it by saying I designed it that way deliberately, and no, you don't get a choice how the game works in that regard. Some will scream bloody murder, others will say finally, someone who gets what it means to have a real life!

I'm also fed up with different visual quality settings and different difficulty levels. They won't happen. You will get The One True Experience of the game designer, me. Why? Because when there's choice, the alternate play paths don't get tested, and the experience turns to shit.

Frankly I can think of a zillion ways to make something HARD in a game, that don't have to do with throwing out a player's work. Adventure games didn't throw out your work, they were still HARD.

Dude just press the quicksave button after every encounter?

 

[bvanevery]

Dude just press the quicksave button after every encounter?

Why should I, or anyone else, have to babysit a button in this manner? I'm trying to concentrate on playing a game. It's my free time, and I don't see how gratuitously hitting a button enhances that experience.

I was not aware of a quicksave button in any event.

The reason they probably don't autosave, is because there's probably a performance impact, depending on the frequency of your autosave.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Why should I, or anyone else, have to babysit a button in this manner? I'm trying to concentrate on playing a game. It's my free time, and I don't see how gratuitously hitting a button enhances that experience.

I was not aware of a quicksave button in any event.

The reason they probably don't autosave, is because there's probably a performance impact, depending on the frequency of your autosave.

Lol do it a few times and it becomes habit, takes about 0 effort. Get real brah. It doesn't in any way distract from the gaming experience (also how could you not know there was a quick save button? its a very common feature). It will enhance your experience by removing the problem you just described.

Keep your sodium levels in check man. You saltier than the dead sea.

 

[bvanevery]

Keep your sodium levels in check man. You saltier than the dead sea.

I really can't tell you how much I hate the game industry, and the computer industry in general, when it is filled with things like "oh just hit this button all these times" and people don't even care. I suppose it is one of the things that Apple gets right more often than not, attention to product detail / not wasting the user's time. But if you want to live in a world where word processors expect you to save manually, that it's just up to you, ok whatever. I won't.

You are happy. I am not. Why am I even talking to you or anyone else about this? Totally lost cause. Unsubscribing, this isn't a peer group.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I have decided that in titles that ask for a high degree of player investment building towards an outcome, i.e. RPGs, I hate having my real wall clock time wasted. I don't want permadeath, I want the exact opposite, permasave! I don't think I should have to lose 20..60 minutes of real work just because I can't be bothered to babysit the Save menu every so often. I see RPGs in some ways like word processing, and the various mishaps in the game, like someone yanking the plug to my computer.

I don't get this bit. Do you want to say that wargames are any meaningfully different in their design principles and gameplay elements from RPG's? They too are trials and errors, require wasting lots of time to succeed and don't give you complete information about particular situations (depending on the specific title)

So that's what I'll do in my own games and damn everyone else. Then they'll hate me for not giving them their hardcore experience. And I'll defend it by saying I designed it that way deliberately, and no, you don't get a choice how the game works in that regard. Some will scream bloody murder, others will say finally, someone who gets what it means to have a real life!

Fair enough, it's all up to you. As long as you realise people have different tastes and play-styles and no one can realistically expect from a game dev to make a particular kind of game, you are free to creatively pursue whatever it is that you consider worthwhile.