Right.
I've flittered through these forums in passing a bit over the last few months, but after reading a rash of Oblivion/Bethesda related bashing (ironically, conducted principle by Fallout fans) I have to jump into the fray.
I fail to see the irony. The Elder Scrolls games and the Fallout games are vastly different beasts. It's like saying a fan of Formula 1 sims should also like auto combat games like Twisted Metal, just because they both involve driving.
No, I'm not a TES fanboy - although I'm sure somebody will tar me with that epithet. I'm actually convinced that one, and only one, game represents the singular culmination of advanced crpg design - and that game's called Fallout. I'll happily bear the distinction of being a tool for Tim Cain's quest for world domination. From establishing woefully underused conventions such as allowing attributes to effect dialog options, to the theme (wonderfully devoid of elves, yet sprinkled with “old world charmsâ€), Fallout and – to a lesser degree – the Infinity Engine titles sadly mark the high water crest of the mid 90s cRPG boom. This isn’t news to anybody here so I’ll shut up about my past. Suffice to say I’m dorky enough to remember Wasteland and all the SSI gold box games as being new (hell, add Zork and other Infocom titles to that list as well).
Certainly not a bad pedigree for coming here, and at least we're on common ground. It makes a welcome change from getting idiots whose first RPG was KOTOR coming in and trying to tell us what RPG fans should be thinking.
Never the less, in this world increasingly devoid of cRPGs of any depth, I see people complaining about the one game that can put the genre back on the map. In a time when people should be rejoicing over *not only* the release of a fairly in-depth cRPG, but the mainstream gaming media‘s attention to a genre normally spurned, I see page after page of people viciously attacking Bethesda and their work – presumably as a threat to something I can’t understand. Can you help me understand it?
Sure, if Oblivion is the raging commercial success most expect it to be, then it may set a precedent for publishers to decide RPG development is something to pursue. But do you honestly think that someone seeking to follow any trend Oblivion may set will see "traditional" RPGs in the same light? Or will they quite rightly say "Graphically intensive, first-person action/RPGs" are a great economic prospect?
We've seen it all before, like when the success of Baldur's Gate "revived" RPGs. Did we get a great batch of RPGs, or did we get a glut of similar titles? Likewise, did the incredible success of Diablo ensure the development of deeper games, or did it merely spawn a spate of uninspired clones? We're still seeing Diablo clones nearly ten years on, and barely any of them have even managed to improve on Diablo, let alone create a solid RP experience.
So basically, we've seen and heard it all before, and honestly, I think most of us would rather less games of higher quality than more games of lesser quality. We'd rather be treated as the considerable niche audience that we are than live off the scraps of "RPG-lite" made for the casual gamer.
We're not part of Oblivion's target audience, so why would we be accounted for by the games who seek to emulate Oblivion and target that same, proven audience?
Ok, the game has been streamlined. This doesn’t make me happy either – but the changes appear minimal at worst. The AI, which needs to be seen to be truly appreciated I feel, sounds like it could be very entertaining even if broken. The depth in landmass scope, and character developmental options dwarf the majority of the single player cRPG experiences released in the last few years (based on original IPs – D&D gets complexity handed on a plate). Where is this venom coming from?
Well part of the venom isn't even spurred on by the game itself. There's considerable resentment toward Bethesda for their pursuit of "the idiot gamer." Once upon a time, we were their target audience, and now they're targetting a less discerning mob because they care more about profit than us. I can understand their motivations, but it still makes them cunts for doing so.
We're also seeing more and more evidence of "streamlining" with every shred of information the iron fist of marketing lets slip. Between that and the tight lipped nature of the Bethesda PR department, we're understandably suspicious that the information blackout is for exactly this reason. We can't help but feel we're being disingenuously strung along to boost the sales figures of a game we won't actually like.
And certainly there are some improvement being made, but they're being made with regard to Bethesda's intended demographic, not us. Sure, it will probably make it a better
game than Morrowind, but here we're all about
roleplaying, and we're more than happy to openly criticise the roleplaying merits of a game even if we otherwise enjoy it for what it is.
As far as the breadth of the game and it's freedom, we have caveats, and they're discussed often. You can find the most recent revival of the discussion from
this post onward.
#1) the success of Oblivion means the success for future titles by Bethesda *and* other developers looking for publishers to take a risk on something expansive (which means expensive).
Perhaps, but historical evidence points to those future titles being inferior imitations of what they seek to emulate. Also, see my above point for our thoughts on "meaningless freedom."
#2) Where is the harm in letting a game that genuinely looks visually astounding, that seems to be trying new things AND comes from a decent pedigree of past history/lore have a bone or two?
The harm comes from the fact that many of us believe that the incredible amount of resources consumed by the enhancements to aspects like the visuals, the audio and such would be better spent on less superficial enhancements. Of the other "new things" the game is trying, most seem to agree that the RAI shows great potential, but doesn't particular contribute to the game's RPing merits.
As for the decent pedigree, that all kind of goes out the window when the game becomes a fucking crossbred mongrel. (see Fallout Tactics: Brotherhood of Steel)*
That’s it, my rant is over (if it even ranks as one). I registered to this forum not merely to ask these questions, however, but to hear why you guys take such a counterproductive stance on a game that hasn’t hurt anybody. Please, let me know...
Are "yes men" productive in any way, shape or form? If all anyone ever hears is praise, then they become blinded to their flaws. Criticism is an effective tool, even if it isn't always "constructive."
It's also hard to swallow the notion that Oblivion hasn't "hurt anybody." The success of Oblivion will not ensure more
quality RPGs. At best, it will "inspire" other developers to target the same audience that we are no longer a part of.
Oh, and I know I’m a cunt and a tosser - so don’t even bother wasting the print space, I’ve beaten you to it.
Believe me, mate, you're about 100x more articulate than the usual "y u guys hate ob?!!!?!!1" posters we get here, so that's why you're actually getting civil responses from our own lineup of cunts and tossers.
RPGs, on the other-hand, are expansive - not just in physical square-mileage but also in story scope, history, item design, or some other level. Only action RPGs (like the console Baldur's Gate titles) have ever felt hollow or shallow.
To understand us, you must understand that we consider a good many RPGs "hollow or shallow." Morrowind may have had an amazing amount of freedom, but it's almost all inconsequential and superficial, and that's a resounding hollow for many of us. You need to look no further than the common stance that Fallout is a superior game to Fallout 2 despite being much smaller in scope, for proof of that.
My point? Well, any cRPGs I've disliked in the past 7 years has been disliked on merits of aesthetics and never on feelings of redundancy. It's not your average developer that can be entice to slave those sleepless hours needed to make even the most basic (non-action) cRPG.
The 90s cRPG craze boomed into life on the financial success of Baldur's Gate and closed when developers stopped feeding the demand - not because of market was saturation with poor titles. Why this occurred could be a decent thread in-and-of itself.
Well, personally, I can't help but think that the production
values (say nothing of the execution) of Baldur's Gate set an unreasonable precedent and expectation from the wider audience it garnered. It ushered in a new generation of RPG fans that care more about visuals, voiced audio and the qualities we "traditionalists" find superficial.
So, with the mounting production costs associated, RPGs become less and less viable as a profitable venture. And really, that's all the more reason to try and target the "hardcore" audience who isn't so fickle as to demand multi-million dollar productions. But, the commercial ventures don't consider us in the scheme of things.
I can agree that Morrowind has its flaws, and gets boring at times - but that pacing isn't necessarily bad just dated. I actually give them points for having the balls to put something like that out. That's like Hollywood putting out a direct film adaptation of a Dostoevsky novel. Actually, the hollywood analogy is quite fitting: Morrowind played on my senses like a decent 70s or 60s film - the pacing is slow, and it sometimes feel painful for that fact, but ultimately the quality is rewarding (think Deerhunter, or any other drama from that period).
Pacing is one thing, but aside from exploration, there wasn't really anything interesting to do. Morrowind was not slow paced, it was just bland. The comparison I use - "Morrowind is kind of like a fantasy counterpart to some hybrid of Google Earth, Wikipedia and Heromaker, with added support for third party content."
It's like reading an atlas for pleasure as opposed to an involving work of fiction.
Also, how far did you play into Morrowind?
I've pushed myself innumerable times, and the furthest I've ever progressed is to the point where Caius decides to up and leave. By that point there's absolutely no challenge to anything I do, and the only motivation to continue playing is to follow a linear central plot that doesn't grip me, or provide any motivation beyond the metagaming ideal of "I have to finish the main quest!"
That's just it, isn't it? "Good roleplaying" is another one of these cultural buzz words, like 'next gen', that everybody accuses everybody else of not understand - but only because we each have our own subjective definition of it. That begs the question:
What makes good roleplaying for you?
There's on for the ages. "Good Roleplaying" around here does have a (contentious) meaning, because it's been discussed often enough that we all have an idea of each others subjective definitions, and a better idea of any consensus that forms.
It's not something I'm ready to get into now, but I'm sure somebody can point you to the trail of threads in the Codex's history.
"I liked the imaginary dream world Morrowind created. The game wasn't much of a game at all. What we all purchased and enjoyed was a tool for the imagination. It was a block of wood and a carving knife wrapped in a DVD package with a price tag of $50. I liked the fact that I could create my own adventure."
Doesn't float with me. I could have a "roleplaying experience" just as compelling with nothing but
The Imperial Library at my disposal. Granted that information is all sourced from the Elder Scrolls games, including Morrowind, but as your mate says "(Morrowind) wasn't much of a game at all."
My point is the community is undercutting itself by not supporting something that is at least 60% more of a RPG than 99% of the titles released. You have noticed we're in quite the drought at the moment?
Not really. We're idealists. We'd rather see the rare 95% gem than yet another tepid half-arsed effort. And we fail to see how encouraging mediocrity will in anyway ensure changes in our favour.
Anyway, I hope that helps you understand our point of view a little better.
--
* But at least Fallout Tactics was a tentative new direction that could be compartmentalised away from the next
RPG in the series. Oblivion is a direct continuation of a line, and so the chances of it reverting back to it's original roots are a bit fucking slim.
).
