Interview Oblivion interview with Gavin

[DarkUnderlord]

We really wanted to focus all of our development efforts on bows and get the feel of those as close to perfect as possible. So we took bows and added in Havok physics, so arrows arc through the world and fall off with gravity. And we made arrows stick in enemies’ bodies, as well as in materials like wood, while they will bounce off things like stone. You can even pluck spent arrows out of your enemy’s body. We’ve added in a skill-based bow zoom to help out higher level characters pull off some slick sniper shots. Stealth bow attacks have their own animations. We’re really excited about our bow implementation and think players are going to really enjoy using them.

Full speech for all dialogue sounds mightily ambitious. Can you describe the improvements that lay in store for conversation?

Ambitious doesn’t being to describe it. The amount of voice recording we have in the game is staggering. For conversation, we’re doing full speech and lip-synching for everyone.

Translation: We just played Mount & Blade and realised how cool all that stuff was, so we decided to get off our arses and implement it.

Unfortunately, we're too dumb to put in horseback combat as well because we blew our budget on the voice-overs. PATRICK STEWART!!

It's a shame when game developers with so much potential focus on "making it look prettier" rather than actual gameplay elements that keep people hooked.

 

[Section8]

The only problem I see with that, is that Mount and Blade (really, click the hyperlink and go check it out) is immensely fun for reasons that clash with the ethos of Elder Scrolls games. The most satisfying moments for me are the times when I (as in, I the player, using my own skill) make a spectacularly difficult shot, a string of couched lance hits, or manage to survive a bloody toe-to-toe encounter, etc.

That's not to say that my characters' skills don't nicely complement the action based combat, but correct me if I'm wrong here, I believe it has been stated on several occasions that Bethesda are doing all they can to steer clear of FPS style elements in favour of keeping combat determined by character skill, which makes implementation of Havok physics completely superfluous.

I'd really like to see physics engines implemented for purposes of gameplay more often than they're implemented for visual effect, or purely for the fuck of it. See Half-Life 2 for examples, and especially the "Home Alone" Half-Life 2 preview with the swinging beams, rolling barrels, etc.

 

[Twinfalls]

I believe it has been stated on several occasions that Bethesda are doing all they can to steer clear of FPS style elements in favour of keeping combat determined by character skill, which makes implementation of Havok physics completely superfluous.

I'd really like to see physics engines implemented for purposes of gameplay more often than they're implemented for visual effect

Traps. Beth are talking up Havok in Oblivion as allowing serious physics-based trap puzzles in dungeons. Which will presumably mean some combination of timing, aiming and physics analysis and logic.

Which could be fun, but I struggle to see physics adding anything substantial to role-playing quest options, as either an alternative, or an adjunct to good writing and well-planned alternative solutions.

 

[crufty]

Which could be fun, but I struggle to see physics adding anything substantial to role-playing quest options, as either an alternative, or an adjunct to good writing and well-planned alternative solutions.

True true...

Hopefully, when swimming to a wreck our mighty warriors will be able to push aside floating bits of floatsam with ease and not get stuck on a mere "floating" plank.

 

[Section8]

Havok based traps sound cute, but I'd like to see/hear more about the specific implementation.

Ideal: Security skill allows tampering with each individual component of a trap, and requires a degree of intelligence and caution. ie, "don't cut that rope until you're sure there isn't a counterweight hanging above you," or "This trap is designed to prevent tampering unless it is approached in a 'logical' manner (with a skill based analysis to provide said logical order.)" But even so, Havok would be mostly superfluous to such a system.

Bad: Characters without security skills can circumvent traps by way of player dexterity. While it would probably make the game a bit more interesting if more action elements were added, I'd rather see more 'thinking' elements, and maybe, just maybe, some RP elements.

 

[Human Shield]

If only this had bows, it could be the best RPG ever....

 

[Naked_Lunch]

She could ride me anyday.

 

[obediah]

Bad: Characters without security skills can circumvent traps by way of player dexterity. While it would probably make the game a bit more interesting if more action elements were added, I'd rather see more 'thinking' elements, and maybe, just maybe, some RP elements.

I hate to be an ass by criticizing the one part of a statement I otherwise agree with, but "Interesting" is not an absolute, two-dimensional measurement. To remove the ambiguity of not knowing whether you implied your own personal preference or believe that what is good for you is good for the goose and the gander (there's a mixture of both at the codex), it would have been better to say

...While it would probably target an altered customer base if more action elements were added,...

 

[Vidder]

Combine the above with this game and all your dreams will come true:

 

[Naked_Lunch]

I used to own the first game.

 

[Elwro]

It wasn't even such a bad game, gamewise.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Yeah, it was like a tycoon game with added boobies!

 

[Mech]

I thought their goal was to make games, not to "sell things", but apparently I was wrong.

Apperantly, unless for some reason they were giving away the games they made for free, at one point in their lifetime.
Otherwise, ya, the goal of the company was to "sell things" (more specifically, "games", if that pleases you).

 

[Vault Dweller]

There is a difference between making products only because you can sell them, and thus produce what sells better, and making products you believe in and want to make, even if that means lower sales.

I worked for companies that went for the highest buck. I worked for companies that went for the best possible product they took pride in. You can always tell the difference.

 

[Cimmerian Nights]

I don't think anyone begrudges them the right to turn a profit either. But when design desicsions are driven by sales projections, it compromises the integrity of it all.

If they're aiming for a commercial success I think they're on the right track actually.

 

[Sol Invictus]

We'll just label them sellouts if they're successful. The game industry loves its martyrs who do poorly. All hail Troika.

 

[TheGreatGodPan]

People didn't consider Richard Garriot to be a sellout even when Ultima was succesful and had a lot of titles. It was when EA took over that everyone got pissed off. Deus Ex (you're probably tired of me mentioning it) is praised and was considered very succesful for a new series from a new team, but IW had relatively dissapointing sales and is constantly derided. Restricted Area was only made by a few people without much resources, but people still bash it. People like Troika because they made what were at core good games weighed down with problems more time and money could have resolved. Other companies are attacked when they are succesful because their success gives the industry to imitate their example and create what many here feel are inferior games.

 

[Sol Invictus]

It's not a good reason to attack Bethesda, though. It's not as if Daggerfall didn't innovate the genre way back then. Might and Magic was hardly a shining example of a good RPG. You can't hate Bethesda for their successes, and you can't blame them for all the poor imitations that D.W. Bradley seems to come up with every now and then.

 

[Chefe]

People didn't consider Richard Garriot to be a sellout even when Ultima was succesful and had a lot of titles. It was when EA took over that everyone got pissed off. Deus Ex (you're probably tired of me mentioning it) is praised and was considered very succesful for a new series from a new team, but IW had relatively dissapointing sales and is constantly derided. Restricted Area was only made by a few people without much resources, but people still bash it. People like Troika because they made what were at core good games weighed down with problems more time and money could have resolved. Other companies are attacked when they are succesful because their success gives the industry to imitate their example and create what many here feel are inferior games.

Exactly. Oblivion, in my opinion, is probably going to be the best commercial RPG this year, and maybe even the next. However, they are getting rid of features present in past titles and only boasting graphics and "Radiant AI". Daggerfall, as Sol mentioned, did innovate the genre. And while it did boast graphics, it also boasted a host of other features... roleplaying features. The only roleplaying, and essentially gameplay, features we've heard from Bethesda are ones taking out. They're going to be hugely successful with this game, and it's going to further promote the fact that you can take out all kinds of shit, but if you have a good enough combat system, a special catch phrase for a feature, and good combat then you'll be fine.

Just think about TESV for a moment. What if it turns into nothing more than a big and glorified hack n' slash? Three guilds, 12 skills, but the NPCs are more lifelike than ever! And the soil erosion is even more real (note: soil erosion here is only used as a term for the collective superficial enhancements)! What if they do this just because some Xboxers complained that it was too difficult... like they did with Morrowind. Can you believe that there were actually people who couldn't find Caius fucking Cosades?? Personally, I would have done all I could to alienate those idiots. I mean, you can get directions from every single fucking NPC in Balmora. What if Oblivion proves too much for their target market? They just dumb it down even more for the next game, and so do companies that look up to them... and all of a sudden we're all playing the exact same fucking 3-skill game with different characters and doing nothing more than hitting people.

I would prefer innovating the genre by evolving it, not devolving it.

What the fuck do I care if an NPC gets food at 3pm? What the fuck does that do for me?

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Only heard of RPG stuff taken out? I don't know, what was written about stealth gameplay is a great addition IMHO. So potentially are physics driven traps, that could bring a lot of new options to dungeon design and dungeon crawling. Most of all there is the promise to have quests that actually allow much more freedom in your aproach to solve them- sure it's only a promise, but one that goes in the right direction I would say. I would also argue that the radiant AI thing could be a great addition for rolplayers - allowing you to scout out NPC behavior to find the best place for an attack, to enter their homes unobserved, to witness and identify the leader of a secret cult by following him home, etc. etc., it provides great quest and gameplay opportunities if used right.

 

[Chefe]

Only heard of RPG stuff taken out? I don't know, what was written about stealth gameplay is a great addition IMHO.

Yes, but now there's no difference between a dagger and claymore except for one doing crappier damage.

One step forward, two steps back.

I would also argue that the radiant AI thing could be a great addition for rolplayers - allowing you to scout out NPC behavior to find the best place for an attack, to enter their homes unobserved, to witness and identify the leader of a secret cult by following him home, etc. etc., it provides great quest and gameplay opportunities if used right.

How fun is that goint to be after one or two times? Really, do they expect you to follow an NPC around, making sure he doesn't see you more than once? I remember GTA: SA had a few missions like this and they were, IMO, the WORST! It was just so boring. Sure, doing this will be fun one or two times, even for me, but after that it'll just be tedious and worthless. The only possible longevity I see in this would be for the Thieves or Brotherhood guilds, which would mean if you're not a thief this really won't do a thing for you.

So, I ask again, what does an NPC eating at 3pm have to do with my gameplay?

 

[Sol Invictus]

There might be a size difference between a dagger and a claymore. That is, even though they both use the "Bladed Weapons" skill, you might not be able to go stealth while equipped with a claymore. That, or claymores don't do 'backstab' damage.

 

[Twinfalls]

Only heard of RPG stuff taken out? I don't know, what was written about stealth gameplay is a great addition IMHO.

I would also argue that the radiant AI thing could be a great addition for rolplayers - allowing you to scout out NPC behavior to find the best place for an attack, to enter their homes unobserved, to witness and identify the leader of a secret cult by following him home, etc. etc., it provides great quest and gameplay opportunities if used right.

'Role playing' does not mean getting a 'you are there' feeling.

 

[Chefe]

There might be a size difference between a dagger and a claymore. That is, even though they both use the "Bladed Weapons" skill, you might not be able to go stealth while equipped with a claymore. That, or claymores don't do 'backstab' damage.

Then why would they combine them into one skill?

I thought the point of roleplaying was to be your character, to be using his or her's strengths and weaknesses. If you're caught in a sticky situation as a thief, your dagger's broken, and the only thing lying around is a large claymore, it should be that picking up the claymore would be suicidal. You're not trained to use it and your strength is not in using heavy weapons. You should have to find another way out using your skills. By combining daggers and longblades, you're essentially saying "well, if you know how to use a dagger, you know how to use a claymore... same thing" and visa versa.

 

[Mech]

There is a difference between making products only because you can sell them, and thus produce what sells better, and making products you believe in and want to make, even if that means lower sales.

I worked for companies that went for the highest buck. I worked for companies that went for the best possible product they took pride in. You can always tell the difference.

Of course there is going to be a difference. Well, as for long as the company is in business before they go bankrupt that is.
Companies which makes good games, and end up specialising in doing *only* what they want to do, loss out in the end. There is no question to that. Despite how good a game may be, if it doesn't have the same market appeal of similar titles it simply won't sell.

Look at Morrowind for example. By all means, it shouldn't have sold as well as it did AT ALL because it was such a niche title. However, they took note as to what sells and put some of those elements into the game to give to mass appeal. You can't blame them for that, it's a nessacery evil, and to say that a company shouldn't do that is foolish really. If Bethesda hadn't done this with Morrowind, I would say there would have been a very good chance that Oblivion never would have existed.

So if a game has to lose some of it's originality, and maybe ingenuity, in order to keep a company afloat, I say go for it. I would rather have 3 or 4 great games, than just 1 godlike game.