I was wrong

[merry andrew]

The films made me go out and buy the books, maybe Oblivion will make one kid get into RP.

That's what I'm hoping. After seeing the footage of the first LOTR movie before release, I went out and bought the books and then read each one before its respective opening day. Otherwise, I dunno how long it would have been, if ever, before I paid attention to that world.

 

[franc kaos]

Well read it then. When there are powerful, systematic forces at play, societal change can occur for the worse without people being 'stoopid'.

Actually, I think Orwell was saying 'a person is intelligent - people are stupid'
You as a person can see the faults of Hitler, yet an entire population followed him into war. It's easier to manipulate a crowd (probably due to the skills shortage Bethesda ;-)...)
Franc Kaos

 

[Sol Invictus]

No werewolves, no Mark/Recall, compass to simplify dialogue options, story driven vs freeform sim...

Eh.

1) Who cares about werewolves?

2) Why do you need mark/recall when you can simply access areas from the fucking map? It's like whining about how Battlefield 2 doesn't give you an option to 'clean your gun'.

3) Dialogue options? It's not like Morrowind featured any dialogue options. Oblivion's a huge step above that.

4) Morrowind and Daggerfall's freeform gameplay was atrociously boring. Fallout was more or less story driven, even though the story wasn't linear and 'forced'. Oblivion could be that way.

 

[Hazelnut]

... how long did it take you to type all of that up?


Peter Jackson's Tolkien wasn't Tolkien. It was dumbed-down Tolkien. It's been a while since I've read the books, but I remember them being more rich in content and storyline. The film was just lots of action, more action, pretty pictures, and more action. There was no real storyline or progression of characters in the films. It wasn't deep at all. Nothing really developed much.

Maybe it was just simply too much for you to concentrate for nearly 4 hours.. :

I *have* read the books recently, and it's a very faithful adaptation without being anal about it. Some things had to be changed because they were films not books. I have sat through all the extra's on the Extended edition DVD's (I never watch those things usually) and found the rationale behind all the decisions very interesting, and even when I disagreed with the decision to make a change I could always see why they did.

PJ, and all the people working with him put their heart and souls into those films and it damn well shows! So my view is either you weren't paying full attention Mr Goldfish, or you just think it's big and clever to be cynical about things ragardless of their actual quality.

I used to imagine whether someone would ever make a worthy film of LOTR when I read the books as a teenager.. I came to the conclusion that it wouldn't happen. It was a very nice surprise when it did.

 

[franc kaos]

The films made me go out and buy the books, maybe Oblivion will make one kid get into RP.

That's what I'm hoping. After seeing the footage of the first LOTR movie before release, I went out and bought the books and then read each one before its respective opening day. Otherwise, I dunno how long it would have been, if ever, before I paid attention to that world.

Pretty much the same thing, except I watched the first movie then read the entire trilogy before the two towers came out. I loved the first movie just on its own merit, but the next two I watched with all the grand history of the books fresh in my mind and ... loved them even more - the books fleshing out what I was watching on screen, altho' No 1 is now my all time fave.

As for Twinfalls suggestion that you read George Orwells '1984' I heartily second it, and also his 'Down and out in London and Paris', I read that in one sitting; mindblowing stuff.

Fable: Looks around nervously - I've actually started playing it (the PC version), just because of all the bad feelings on the Bethsoft boards. it's no RPG, but. it's. not. that. terrible... There, I've said it: I would call it a medieval FP shooter, fun and fluffy and finished in about 25 hours. If Bethsoft wanna go that route then they're in for a rude awakening because other people have that covered, and doing it much better: skills for example, with the EXP points, buy some <stronger> spells, buff up or get more sneaky (in practice do all three), your only choice is what spells, buff up health, to hit or strength, etc.

 

[franc kaos]

Eh.
1) Who cares about werewolves?
2) Why do you need mark/recall when you can simply access areas from the fucking map? It's like whining about how Battlefield 2 doesn't give you an option to 'clean your gun'.
3) Dialogue options? It's not like Morrowind featured any dialogue options. Oblivion's a huge step above that.
4) Morrowind and Daggerfall's freeform gameplay was atrociously boring. Fallout was more or less story driven, even though the story wasn't linear and 'forced'. Oblivion could be that way.

1)I don't, but some do, it's about the freedom to express your alter ego in a game that advertises (quote Tod Howard) 'Oblivion will function as a fantasy world simulator'.
I personally also don't care about armour, hammers, bows but it would still piss me off if they weren't in the game.

2)Instant travel takes time and can only be used on the map to take you anywhere else on the map. Mark/Recall are instantaneous and can move you from the twelf level of a dungeon (a guy can hope) to a healer in the mages guild and back again; it was in Arena, Daggerfall and MW.

3)MW did even if it was shit, and you hope Oblivion is a huge step above that.

4)Well if you hated Daggerfall and MW I assume you'll not be playing Oblivion because it's going to be less of the same, but maybe story driven was the wrong term.

In Daggerfall and MW you could ignore the main quest, but in Oblivion with these gates opening everywhere how easy is that gonna be? That's actually an unknown and it might not impinge on the gameplay, but I worry that these quests can be broken so easily - how is that gonna impact on modders (more of a worry than a whinge).
As for Fallout, it's been a long long time since I played those games, just going on rose tinted memories and what I've read on these boards.

Franc Kaos ~ Do what you Will shall be the whole of the law.

 

[Zli]

I personally also don't care about armour, hammers, bows but it would still piss me off if they weren't in the game.

Then pissing you off is too easy.

2)Instant travel takes time and can only be used on the map to take you anywhere else on the map. Mark/Recall are instantaneous and can move you from the twelf level of a dungeon (a guy can hope) to a healer in the mages guild and back again; it was in Arena, Daggerfall and MW.

Yes, but the first two didn't have divine intervention scrolls. In MW you could cast mark in a dungeon, cast d.i. and heal in a temple, then recall yourself back into the dungeon. It didn't really make much difference since dungeons were too easy anyway, but in Oblivion it might...

3)MW did even if it was shit, and you hope Oblivion is a huge step above that.

Oh yeah, 'the witch went thataway'. To say the directions were shit would be too kind.

4)Well if you hated Daggerfall and MW I assume you'll not be playing Oblivion because it's going to be less of the same, but maybe story driven was the wrong term.

In Daggerfall and MW you could ignore the main quest, but in Oblivion with these gates opening everywhere how easy is that gonna be? That's actually an unknown and it might not impinge on the gameplay, but I worry that these quests can be broken so easily - how is that gonna impact on modders (more of a worry than a whinge).

You're making too big a deal out of it. The gates seem to me to be just spawn points, albeit ones you can see and even step into.

 

[Twinfalls]

PJ, and all the people working with him put their heart and souls into those films and it damn well shows! So my view is either you weren't paying full attention Mr Goldfish, or you just think it's big and clever to be cynical about things ragardless of their actual quality.

Or maybe the film is just shit.

Hey Hazel - I put my heart and soul into masturbation, and it damn well shows! So if you call the stain in my pants anything but a GREAT MOVIE, you're just trying to be big and clever, OKAY FUCKER?

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

MSFD uses a logical fallacy: Appeal to Authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) to back up his weak defense for the Lord of the Rings movie. "It can't suck, because so and so said it was awesome!" and of course, argumentum ad populum. His argument basically appeals to popular attitudes instead of presenting relevant material to defend the subject matter.

Not at all, not at all. I merely pointed out that given all the awards the movies won, given the nearly universal critical acclaim, and given the unbelievably huge box office take worldwide -- the opinion that Peter Jackson's LOTR trilogy "sucks" is, by far, a minority opinion. I wasn't defending the movies -- I was pointing out that most people didn't think they sucked.

He's not wrong -- it's his opinion, after all -- but it's an opinion that's shared by a very, very small group of people.

 

[Hazelnut]

PJ, and all the people working with him put their heart and souls into those films and it damn well shows! So my view is either you weren't paying full attention Mr Goldfish, or you just think it's big and clever to be cynical about things ragardless of their actual quality.

Or maybe the film is just shit.

Hey Hazel - I put my heart and soul into masturbation, and it damn well shows! So if you call the stain in my pants anything but a GREAT MOVIE, you're just trying to be big and clever, OKAY FUCKER?

That's a pretty damn stupid thing to say!

I bet you just gotta be different, and non-mainstream dontcha? As soon as something becomes popular you aren't interested any more... Maybe you didn't like the film, and that's fine, but to call an artistic work of that magnitude shit because you don't like it is, quite frankly, immature and self-centred snobbery. There are many things that I don't like - some are shit, and others are good, just they don't float my boat. Just because something is popular and mainstream doesn't neccessarily mean it's automatically good or conversly automatically shit you know.

Regarding LotR - maybe the character development is thin, but so it is in the books - that's not the focus of the work. You don't call a sculpture shit because it's not a painting do you?

H.

 

[Twinfalls]

Just because something is popular and mainstream doesn't neccessarily mean it's automatically good or conversly automatically shit you know.

And who the fuck is saying that, but you?

Let me translate what you are saying: LOTR is big and mainstream. Therefore, any criticism of LOTR is *because it is big and mainstream*. Any critic of LOTR is doing so *so that they can look cool and alternative*. There can be NO criticism of LOTR. LOTR CAN NOT BE SHIT.

Hazel:

LOTR can be shit.

 

[Hazelnut]

Just because something is popular and mainstream doesn't neccessarily mean it's automatically good or conversly automatically shit you know.

And who the fuck is saying that, but you?

Well, I'll admit that I am making my best guess at the reasons for you saying it's shit - based on what you typed as well as the motivations of the few other ppl I have come across that have said the same thing... you haven't said anything to change my best guess so far...

Let me translate what you are saying: LOTR is big and mainstream. Therefore, any criticism of LOTR is *because it is big and mainstream*. Any critic of LOTR is doing so *so that they can look cool and alternative*. There can be NO criticism of LOTR. LOTR CAN NOT BE SHIT.

Hazel:

LOTR can be shit.

Well if you consider stating that "LotR is shit" is being a critic then I guess you're right. I see it as you not liking something, in your head at least, making something shit. Criticism is fine, but calling something of quality shit because you don't like it is retarded. I'm only guessing at your motivations as I said above. I don't like the film "The Godfather" much, but I don't go around saying it's shit. I can see the quality... even though it's not to my taste.

Comprende now?

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

I will say this much -- the extended edition dvds are all three of them superior to the theatrical releases.

I also have not read all the books. I am a heavy reader, but in my younger days I read almost exclusively science fiction (I've been a member of the Science Fiction Book Club since the late 1970s) and didn't have much interest in fantasy. Oh, I read Wizard of Earthsea and The Hobbit, and I saw the Ralph Bakshi and Rankin/Bass cartoon versions of the Lord of the Rings books, but never tackled the books themselves until after Peter Jackson's FOTR was released. Over the past 15 years or so my reading spectrum has broadened considerably, and I'm a big fan of historical fiction, particularly stories of pre- and post-Roman Europe, the Crusades, and Arthurian legend. I'm pretty much always reading SOMETHING. I just finished Orson Scott Card's latest, "Magic Street."

Anyway, I actually found the book Fellowship of the Ring boring. I was shocked at how much time it took Frodo to get off his ASS and leave with the ring, and with how much time they spent at Rivendell. There was absolutely no sense of urgency at all. It really put me off the story. If they didn't think it was so urgent, why should I? I thought the movie pulled that off more effectively. I have yet to finish reading FOTR, let alone start reading the other two books.

 

[Chefe]

hello world

 

[Twinfalls]

Hey - for the record, I don't think LOTR is shit, either. You will note that I said 'It can be shit', meaning it is not above criticism. Hazelnut's basic attack that anyone criticising the film is doing so simply because it is 'big and mainstream', is one that should be strongly refuted.

I think LOTR is dull, unimaginative, lacks any original artistic vision, and a failure at recreating the books.

I was shocked at how much time it took Frodo to get off his ASS and leave with the ring, and with how much time they spent at Rivendell. There was absolutely no sense of urgency at all. It really put me off the story.

This the kind of thinking that makes me expect less of Oblivion.

And hey - MSFD - you may say the number of people who think LOTR is less than the greatest thing ever is very, very small. But guess what : This is completely irrelevant to criticism of LOTR - EVEN criticism on the basic level of 'it sucked'.

You are still doing what Sol Invictus described earlier, only by stealth.

 

[crpgnut]

Wow! I skip 5 or 6 pages and it went from why Oblivion is gonna suck to the Lord of the Rings I agree with you about the LOTR books though, MSFD. They are a huge disappointment after watching the movie. JRR Tolkien earns my respect because he created a work that inspired a whole genre of books. He, basically, is the father of the fantasy novel. His work has been surpassed by thousands of people, but he was the pioneer who got the movement started. For that, I'm very grateful. JRR Tolkien is indirectly responsible for my interest in TES.

Back to Oblivion...I've decided to just bide my time and wait to see what gets released. I'm a long time fan of the series but have been worried about the focus becoming more and more graphical and less and less gameplay. It seems that player choice, outside of graphics, is more and more limited. A fantastic story won't make this a good game unless I have a strong say in how that story gets told. Morrowind's main quest was just painful. I don't think I ever bothered to follow the ridiculously long-winded prophecy crap. That said, I really enjoyed the game because my goal was to become a great alchemist with a large warehouse of apparatus and potions. Then I played as a levitating archer who never went inside a building, etc. As long as I can create a story and play it in Oblivion, I will be just as satisfied as I was with Morrowind. If Bethesda can tell an entertaining story this time, so much the better.

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

Twinfalls -- it took Frodo YEARS to leave the shire after Bilbo gave him the ring. YEARS. Even after Gandalf came back and told him to go. NO sense of urgency, NO sense of importance. "Oh, some day there may be some bad shit associated with this thing, so eventually, maybe, you might want to think about heading out and doing something about it." THE MOVIE HANDLED THIS BETTER.

What the FUCK does that have to do with Oblivion?

 

[Rulion]

Twinfalls -- it took Frodo YEARS to leave the shire after Bilbo gave him the ring. YEARS. Even after Gandalf came back and told him to go. NO sense of urgency, NO sense of importance. "Oh, some day there may be some bad shit associated with this thing, so eventually, maybe, you might want to think about heading out and doing something about it." THE MOVIE HANDLED THIS BETTER.

What the FUCK does that have to do with Oblivion?

I've never seen MSFD curse before!

And speaking of the movie, it felt like it took years for it to end!

 

[Twinfalls]

Uh oh. That was *not* something I wanted to be responsible for.

Ermm... slow pacing can be good, a lack of action isn't always bad - it was the slow build up which allowed the world and atmosphere in the books to be so well fleshed out.... and if that isn't a view of the devs, then it doesn't bode well for the game....

Ah, nevermind. It's been a long while since I read the books (though as a kid the slow pacing didn't bother me a bit). You may well be right, perhaps it is just too slow.

Just keep in mind MSFD - just about every single 'This means Oblibon will be bad' comment around the net is there simply because people are looking forward so much to the thing. They (I) desperately want it to not be an action-focused thing like everything else big has become.

Every prod, insult, and piece of vitriol is a back handed compliment - your game *matters*.

Otherwise they wouldn't comment on it at all.

 

[Drakron]

There was no sense of urgency because there was none ... not until the ringwraights shown up in the Shire that it became a issue.

The whole deal was keeping the One Ring away from Sauron, it became destroying it after Riverdale.

And the movies are poo, its picking up the books and add/altered scenes to cater to the "usual movie going experience" with Arwen crap and Sauron nuclear bomb and crap ... bah.

 

[MrSmileyFaceDude]

I understand that, Drakron -- I just think the movie handled it better

And it's Rivendell.

 

[Sol Invictus]

1)I don't, but some do, it's about the freedom to express your alter ego in a game that advertises (quote Tod Howard) 'Oblivion will function as a fantasy world simulator'.

Well that's illogical. It's not like every fantasy world out there features werewolves. Far from it. It's just a whimsical thing some people want in the game that has no bearing whatsoever on the setting of the game. A person's gotta be a furry to want to play a werewolf, anyway, and who cares about furries?

I personally also don't care about armour, hammers, bows but it would still piss me off if they weren't in the game.

See, now you're getting somewhere. Some people have very valid complaints about the game, notably its lack of axes, throwing knives and crossbows. My personal complaint is that the horse is about as useful as a sack of grain. They could at least give it some purpose as mobile storage.

2)Instant travel takes time and can only be used on the map to take you anywhere else on the map. Mark/Recall are instantaneous and can move you from the twelf level of a dungeon (a guy can hope) to a healer in the mages guild and back again; it was in Arena, Daggerfall and MW.

With the way the game and its map functions, I think that every location you visit in the game will be usable from the world map so you won't have to walk quite a ways to get to the dungeon next to some town. Besides, town portals (mark/recall) are cheap. Leave that in an action RPG. Real ones don't need them. They're too hard to balance. It'd be stupid if you could just kill one monster at a time and return to heal.

3)MW did even if it was shit, and you hope Oblivion is a huge step above that.

Yes, I hope.

4)Well if you hated Daggerfall and MW I assume you'll not be playing Oblivion because it's going to be less of the same, but maybe story driven was the wrong term.

I don't hate either of them. I could never get into Daggerfall so that's a non issue. I didn't touch any RPGs before Fallout and Baldur's Gate, and it took me awhile to get used to Ultima7 when I played it later.

I liked Morrowind. Hell, you can read that here

It's got its issues. Mainly, the lack of a cohesive storyline, and the tons of unrelated quests, but I played it for over 200 hours, and I liked it. I just disliked how the main quest seemed like nothing more than yet another meaningless quest.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I also have not read all the books. I am a heavy reader, but in my younger days I read almost exclusively science fiction (I've been a member of the Science Fiction Book Club since the late 1970s) and didn't have much interest in fantasy. Oh, I read Wizard of Earthsea and The Hobbit, and I saw the Ralph Bakshi and Rankin/Bass cartoon versions of the Lord of the Rings books, but never tackled the books themselves until after Peter Jackson's FOTR was released. Over the past 15 years or so my reading spectrum has broadened considerably, and I'm a big fan of historical fiction, particularly stories of pre- and post-Roman Europe, the Crusades, and Arthurian legend. I'm pretty much always reading SOMETHING. I just finished Orson Scott Card's latest, "Magic Street."

Might I recommend reading George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire book series? There's 3 out so far: A Game of Thrones, A Clash of Kings and A Storm of Swords. I thoroughly recommend them. It's the very definition of epic.

It's 'low fantasy', meaning there's very little, to no amount of magic. The setting is similar to Middle Ages Europe. It's totally dramatic, and the amazing characters and their associated plots are absolutely intriguing. Far from being 'formulaic fantasy', the story consists of politics, wars, and personal vendettas rather than some bullshit 'epic quest'. It's the kind of book that puts derivative nonsense by R.A. Salvatore to shame.

You should also definitely read China Mieville's steampunk setting books, which include Perdido Street Station, The Scar and Iron Council.

I loathe the 'epic quest'. The only book series to ever pull that one off properly was Wheel of Time, and mid way through the series it turned into a series of elaborate descriptions on braids and clothes.

Anyway, I actually found the book Fellowship of the Ring boring. I was shocked at how much time it took Frodo to get off his ASS and leave with the ring, and with how much time they spent at Rivendell. There was absolutely no sense of urgency at all. It really put me off the story. If they didn't think it was so urgent, why should I? I thought the movie pulled that off more effectively. I have yet to finish reading FOTR, let alone start reading the other two books.

Yup, that was my reaction to the Fellowship book. Tolkien is a boring writer and Peter Jackson really gave the storyline a strong sense of urgency. That's one of the things the books lacked. I wouldn't recommend the other two books beyond FOTR, either. They're really boring.

 

[Drakron]

I understand that, Drakron -- I just think the movie handled it better

And it's Rivendell.

I think the main issue is that Tolkien was not writting books, it was trying to create a equivalent of a epic saga and that is why as books LotR are not that appealing, unless you know what you are looking for.

You sould read Robert E. Howard, those are books (or short stories) that can be considered the first fantasy stories ever written.

In fact one thing that pisses me off is that Tolkien is credited of creating the fantasy gender as the only thing he did was making it popular with LotR.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Fantasy was alive long before Tolkien was even born. Grimm's Fairy Tales, anyone? Beowulf Saga? Homer's Odyssey? The fucking Gilgamesh Epic, even.

All Tolkien did was create a bunch of raving, foaming-at-the-mouth nerds who speak in Elfish. I mean "Elven". Or is that Elfin? Who gives a fuck.