Anybody else find themselves immersed in this gorgeous world?
Printable View
Anybody else find themselves immersed in this gorgeous world?
Well quite a lot of Orgahs actually, sadly my machine is not good enough - so no Oblivion for me.
Take a look:
Here
And
Another one, even bigger
:balloon2:
I think maybe reviving this thread was a bad idea. After reading those threads I can see what'll happen. Somebody who doesn't like the game will come in and whine about stupid nonsense because they can't accept the fact that the game isn't diablo, which in my opinion was a terrible game. There was no skill involved.
Oblivion stresses skill over arbitrary level # nonsense. If it's not hard enough for you, turn the difficulty up, thats what it's there for. Duh.
...nevermind, I'm just getting myself all riled up and pissed off. :wall:
pre-emptive strike ?
Lucjan...had your dose of perspective lately?
Oh yeah.....teh old.
Originally Posted by Lucjan:
I think maybe reviving this thread was a bad idea. After reading those threads I can see what'll happen. Somebody who doesn't like the game will come in and whine about stupid nonsense because they can't accept the fact that the game isn't diablo, which in my opinion was a terrible game. There was no skill involved.
Oblivion stresses skill over arbitrary level # nonsense. If it's not hard enough for you, turn the difficulty up, thats what it's there for. Duh.
...nevermind, I'm just getting myself all riled up and pissed off. :wall:
I don't have this game. What do you like most about it?
I thoroughly enjoyed it for 100 hours or so but then got bored and aggravated.
But I figure I got my moneys worth, so I can't complain too much.~:)
It certainly is a gorgeous game.
edit: I'd love to see that engine taken to a fantasy version of medieval Japan
good sweet jezebel! i hate oblivion! why couldn't it be diablo? :bigcry:
for realz though. it's fun enough. it's very pretty, even on my ghetto box. the bloom +2xAA, 2xAF does a good job of making me forget my vid card can't do HDR.
the main problem i have with oblivion is the same i had with morrowind: the lifeless NPCs. just like morrowind, the characters just kind of inhabit the space of cyrodil, they don't seem to actually live in it. it's a bit better than morrowind, i guess.. though in oblivion there are even less people in these cities, it seems. probably a necessity to keep the framerates respectable.
all the talk of the "radiant AI" got my hopes up too high. i hear they had to scale back the "radiant"-ness in development. still, that was the main improvement over morrowind that i was interested in. i hear some people call it "fraudulent AI". it's bad in some spots, but overall it's pretty similar to morrowind.
the game world is smaller than morrowind's, but it's much richer. the score is amazing. best i've heard in a game in... maybe ever. melee combat is well done, but the lack of mounted combat and throwing weapons really sucks.. especially for those of us who liked mount & blade.
there are a lot of little things that start to bug you if you play it enough.. like the persuassion and lockpicking minigames defeating the purpose of their respective skills. but if you play it that much, it's probably fun, right?
also, the devs definitely got a taste of the console $$$, and you can tell that the game is tailored to console players in some ways. this was expected, however.
i like it. it's not as great as i had hoped. the AI and still-lifeless NPC game world are the main disappointments. also, i installed the OOO mod and a couple of others before even bothering to play, because i knew i would like it more that way (from my experience with morrowind mods). if your computer can run it, it's almost worth the money to see the graphics. certainly a good buy if you liked morrowind (just don't expect anything revolutionary).
See, Big John, that kind of a reply I can respect. It's the blatant "this game sucks because I'm totally incapable of being pleased!" comments that erk me.
I think the game, overall, is a big improvement over morrowind in all but two aspects. The first being that the entire province of Cyrodiil is roughly about the same size in game as Vvardenfell (which constitutes only about 1/4 of Morrowinds actual territory). Even though Cyrodiil is supposed to be the gigantic central province of Tamriel. And the second being that it suffered the same shortcomings in ai that fable did. Both games ramped up their ai to make it sound like the npcs would be living little electronic lives...and instead they just followed the same scripts with small randomized conversations all day long. So I'd agree in the over-hyped ai improvement, but that didn't deter me from loving the game.
Oblivion is quite possibly the most (provided you have a computer that can run it graphically the way it was intended to be run) visually pleasing game I've ever seen. It provides plenty of new and plenty of old school rpg elements to make the gameplay both fresh and nostalgic at the same time. And the series continues to be the most open, free form rpg world out there that delivers an enjoyable game experience by proving once again that it can quickly addict both new and veteran players. And, at least for me, one of the few series that actually makes you feel like "Yeah...I wish real life was like this..I would so be in the (insert guild name here)."
I throughly enjoyed Oblivion, on my Xbox (FTW). Got all the achievement points for the game too. And my new Nord character is level 17. Now I'm getting the scary monsters like Land Dreughs, Spider Daedra, and Daedroths.
To paraphrase the words of teh great Simon Bates "Its a game you either love or hate. I quite liked it".
Visually, fantastic. Gameplay good, though I never found combat that easy to master and would have liked some sort of auto-option. I turned the difficulty down a touch which at least meant I could get from city to city without being murdered by bandits much of the time. I guess it was here that the notorious leveling was catching me out, in that I still needed to turn the difficulty down to avoid being murdered by bandits at level 10. (yes I know, I suck)
Ultimately, the freeform possibilities of the world, which really drew me in at first, wound up boring me. Yeah, I could go and get another assasination job, or I could ask around in a pub and find out whose got a job to do, or, hey, I could even do the main quest, but I couldn't be bothered. I didn't care what happened to any of the NPCs, hell, I don't think I could even NAME an NPC (well, not more than a couple anyway). For me, although I think it was a really impressive effort to out that whole game world out there, something a bit more plotted would have worked better.
Also as an RPG I found the whole skills/classes thing again oddly a bit too freeform and a bit too generic at the same time? Too freeform, in that unless you are really self denying I bet everyone winds up with a fighter type (with a bit of magic, probably healing) a thief type (with a bit of magic as before) or a wizard type (with a bit of fighting). Too generic in that many of the skills are too broad, especially combat. Want to play a pirate type? Choose "blade", "marksman" and "light armour". A druid? Same choices. A thief, guess what, same choices. light infantry? Same again. Now try the same thing, but with cutlass and crossbow, scimitar and shortbow, dagger and crossbow, and shortsword and spear. Doesn't that sound more piratey, druidy, thiefy and light infantry-y?
I got my value for money from it though so no complaints. I'll probably fire it up again in a bit to finish the Dark Brotherhood quests anyway, and then put it away.
Oh, and was I the only person to find it annoying that random people who you walked near but were having nothing to do with would start shouting "STOP TALKING" or "JUST GO AWAY". Am I the only one to have murdered one or two of them and to hell with the guards?
Oh and some of the skills were incredibly tedious. Alchemy was probably the stand out there, really, could anyone be bothered? Thank god for auto attempt on lock picking too.
I agree with pretty much everything EA says. I did find the combat and the skills system much better this time. The combat was more solid (maybe even better than Mount and Blade - heresy, I know), less AI jumping around. And somehow I never found I was compelled to engage in the tedium of Morrowind's exploits to get 5x skill bonuses (eg letting a mudcrab beat you up for an hour to get your armour skill up; or leaping off rocks repetitively).
But I guess I prefer more story-driven RPGs. Oblivion was excellent up to Kvatch and getting Sean Bean to the monastery. It was intense, challenging, Oblivion itself was pretty gob-smacking first time in etc. But then you are cut loose from the main plot and free to go anywhere, do anything, returning to the main plot if you can be bothered. The final straw for me was doing the mage guild quests when I encountered the necromancers for the first time. Great, I thought, a story arc that I can follow. But immediately you are told about the necromancers, the next guild quest sends you off somewhere else on some seemingly inconsequential visit to a count. Grrrr!
Thinking back to the RPGs I'ved like most - the Fallouts, BGs etc - they have long main story arcs that hook you and then really meaty sidequests that get your interest. In Oblivion, the "optional mainquest" game design stops the main story hooking me. The sidequests are much better than those in Morrowind, but often they feel strangely bland and lifeless - perhaps because of the poor characterisation of the NPCs as EA says.
For me the main quest was the opposite. The first time through it really pulled me along. And was quite good.
The one thing about the elder scrolls that continues to boggle me, is that they give you a list of a couple dozen classes to choose from, even though they know everybody under the sun will do a custom class. lol.
For me it was Templar. Blade, Block, Light Armor, Heavy Armor, Restoration, Athletics and Security. I tried to make somewhat of a crusader-knight type character. Imperial race. Works quite nicely for my playstyle.
Originally Posted by Lucjan:
I usually choose a pre-made class. Sometimes I will make one, but for the most part I don't.
The one thing about the elder scrolls that continues to boggle me, is that they give you a list of a couple dozen classes to choose from, even though they know everybody under the sun will do a custom class. lol.
For me it was Templar. Blade, Block, Light Armor, Heavy Armor, Restoration, Athletics and Security. I tried to make somewhat of a crusader-knight type character. Imperial race. Works quite nicely for my playstyle.
Oblivion's system of character creation is, however, better than Morrowind's.
I choose to answer questions. Evil answers all the way.
'You would be a Crusader.' Wha?:inquisitive:
Originally Posted by econ21:
Did you do that quest? It was actually quite interesting. Without giving too much away, you are sent as a pawn under false pretenses. Iirc, it does actually have to do with the necromancers as well as the count's dirty secret. :book:
The final straw for me was doing the mage guild quests when I encountered the necromancers for the first time. Great, I thought, a story arc that I can follow. But immediately you are told about the necromancers, the next guild quest sends you off somewhere else on some seemingly inconsequential visit to a count. Grrrr!
Originally Posted by Keba:
'You would be a Crusader.' Wha?:inquisitive:
What I meant was that when I created my custom class, I tried to take into account what kinds of skills may have been important to a knight's templar of the crusades. And chose the skills I felt most closely matched.
Originally Posted by Lucjan:
With the way Oblivion works, one need not bother with classes overmuch, given that you can, and pretty much do, end mastering all skills with ease.
What I meant was that when I created my custom class, I tried to take into account what kinds of skills may have been important to a knight's templar of the crusades. And chose the skills I felt most closely matched.
I personally stick to magician types, whether of the thieving type or the warrior type, but never the pure magician, they tend to be pretty weak without a supporting party.
Originally Posted by econ21:
At least there was some relevance to the plot in that quest. It wasn't until the end of the Mages Guild quest that I finally gave up on Oblivion. It was just so poor. If you didn't finish the MG quests it may be worth doing just to experience the least thrilling climax ever. If only Bethseda had hired some decent writers and storytellers!
I agree with pretty much everything EA says. I did find the combat and the skills system much better this time. The combat was more solid (maybe even better than Mount and Blade - heresy, I know), less AI jumping around. And somehow I never found I was compelled to engage in the tedium of Morrowind's exploits to get 5x skill bonuses (eg letting a mudcrab beat you up for an hour to get your armour skill up; or leaping off rocks repetitively).
But I guess I prefer more story-driven RPGs. Oblivion was excellent up to Kvatch and getting Sean Bean to the monastery. It was intense, challenging, Oblivion itself was pretty gob-smacking first time in etc. But then you are cut loose from the main plot and free to go anywhere, do anything, returning to the main plot if you can be bothered. The final straw for me was doing the mage guild quests when I encountered the necromancers for the first time. Great, I thought, a story arc that I can follow. But immediately you are told about the necromancers, the next guild quest sends you off somewhere else on some seemingly inconsequential visit to a count. Grrrr!
Thinking back to the RPGs I'ved like most - the Fallouts, BGs etc - they have long main story arcs that hook you and then really meaty sidequests that get your interest. In Oblivion, the "optional mainquest" game design stops the main story hooking me. The sidequests are much better than those in Morrowind, but often they feel strangely bland and lifeless - perhaps because of the poor characterisation of the NPCs as EA says.
I agree with Big John, EA and Econ here. I probably got my moneys worth in terms of hours (though much of that was due to my mage having to sneak around slowly to survive in his early levels, and my tendency to ride everywhere), but I can't help but to be disappointed. This game is one that just gives you a feeling of so many missed opportunities and curious design choices. Interestingly I would probably have enjoyed it more if I was a console gamer. On the PC it could have been so much more.
Edit:
I'll keep an eye on the mods and expansions released for Oblivion and may well return in a couple of years when many of the wrinkles have been ironed out. It worked for Morrowind!
The problem with the mages guild is that Bethesda took out the unarmoured skill line. Without that robe covered mages don't stand a chance against anyone with any kind of skill with blunt or blade. I mean even you miss the smell will kill'em.
Unamroured really gave more pure theif and mage characters a chance versus warrior classes.
I like Oblivion for its gameplay and staying true to it's Daggerfall/Arena roots. Though I do agree that I miss the unarmored skill. I used to play a High Elven catburgler-type of character in Daggerfall (where the High Elves didnt look like Discovery Daytime TV makeover mishap). But now with all the various mods out there, I am enjoying very beautifully-skinned armors (read: Dark Rose Armor and White Rose Armor), and I especially love the black and purple look of the Dark Brotherhood armors.
However, the main problem I have is that I have a sub-quality machine (Athlon XP 2500 running at 1.46ghz, 1gig system memory, and Radeon 9550, a motherboard that doesnt much of anything better than this). I usually have to put everything at medium or low to get much performance (AFTER tweaking the hell out of the ini files). And, considering I'll be going to college in the fall and I'm between jobs at the moment, I have no money to spare to upgrade.
All in all, I enjoy what little time I have in Oblivion, especially many of the quests. The Dark Brotherhood quests are absolutely my favorite. Brutal, ironic, gives bonuses for murdering a certain way, and very interesting concepts in the murders (I love the "Who Dunnit?" murder).
Slowdowns occur on almost every machine. Mine works like a charm, until I walk into a meadow ... then I am barely able to do anything.
That is when I discovered the TG command in the console, and I could finally get off the roads, for a change.
I purchased my system 5 years ago but I've kept it updated regularly..in fact the only things that are original parts of my machine are the sound card, motherboard, processor and speakers. Everything else I've updated drasticly since then, actually looking right now at buying a new motherboard and cpu to update from my 2.8 pent 4 to a 3.6 or a 3.0 dual core..
Maybe somebody can offer a suggestion on that.
I'm very, very skepticle on the dual core thing because I've heard it has some capatibility issues with certain programs, and the fact that I can't seem to find one that runs over 3.0g that won't break the bank.
I've always run on a single core processor and so far swear by them. Some unbiased input would be helpful.
Originally Posted by kekvitirae:
That right there is why I play the Xbox version. My PC is relatively new but it still not enough for Oblivion.
However, the main problem I have is that I have a sub-quality machine (Athlon XP 2500 running at 1.46ghz, 1gig system memory, and Radeon 9550, a motherboard that doesnt much of anything better than this). I usually have to put everything at medium or low to get much performance (AFTER tweaking the hell out of the ini files). And, considering I'll be going to college in the fall and I'm between jobs at the moment, I have no money to spare to upgrade.
Originally Posted by kekvitirae:
Wait until you get ot the end and see what they do to Lucien Lachance. :skull:
All in all, I enjoy what little time I have in Oblivion, especially many of the quests. The Dark Brotherhood quests are absolutely my favorite. Brutal, ironic, gives bonuses for murdering a certain way, and very interesting concepts in the murders (I love the "Who Dunnit?" murder).
Originally Posted by Lucjan:
Get an Athlon 64 X2. They aren't a pricey as the FX. Unless ofcourse your married to Intel. In which case your stuck until Conroe comes along and the Pentium D's come down in price.
I purchased my system 5 years ago but I've kept it updated regularly..in fact the only things that are original parts of my machine are the sound card, motherboard, processor and speakers. Everything else I've updated drasticly since then, actually looking right now at buying a new motherboard and cpu to update from my 2.8 pent 4 to a 3.6 or a 3.0 dual core..
Maybe somebody can offer a suggestion on that.
I'm very, very skepticle on the dual core thing because I've heard it has some capatibility issues with certain programs, and the fact that I can't seem to find one that runs over 3.0g that won't break the bank.
I've always run on a single core processor and so far swear by them. Some unbiased input would be helpful.
And compatability with dual cores is realted to older programs that aren't updated to support them. Most hardware you can get a BIOS update to use dual core CPU's.
I wouldn't say I'm married to Intel, I've considered amd chips..but I don't like the way they represent their processor speeds.
They say their chips are supposed to run the same or faster than their intel counterparts, but they look to me to run blatantly slower. All I'm saying is I don't see how 2.8 dual core athlon (after you mess with their stupid little formula) runs faster or equivilant than a 3.0 intel dc. Is it just because it has the name athlon in it?
Nobody has really properly informed me as to why athlon is supposedly so much more of a better buy quality wise. They always just refer to "it's cheaper and just as good".. If I can't be given a solid, backed up example of how it's clearly superior, I'll default to the intel's I've come to know and love as the brain of my computers.
My system specs are..
2.8ghz Intel Pentium 4 processor
2 gigs Ram
256mb Radeon x1300 graphics card
In order to replace my processor, I'm going to need to update my motherboard too, which also hasn't been touched since I bought the computer and would like to replace (for the sake of getting the pci express slots) so that I could grab a faster 512mb graphics card.
Originally Posted by Lucjan:
eh? all you need do is look at performance/gaming benchmarks on sites like anandtech. i'm not saying that one is better than the other (i'm not shopping for a processor right now, so i don't know the current situation), but traditionally, clock cycles are not the sole determinant in processor performance.
I wouldn't say I'm married to Intel, I've considered amd chips..but I don't like the way they represent their processor speeds.
They say their chips are supposed to run the same or faster than their intel counterparts, but they look to me to run blatantly slower. All I'm saying is I don't see how 2.8 dual core athlon (after you mess with their stupid little formula) runs faster or equivilant than a 3.0 intel dc. Is it just because it has the name athlon in it?
Nobody has really properly informed me as to why athlon is supposedly so much more of a better buy quality wise. They always just refer to "it's cheaper and just as good".. If I can't be given a solid, backed up example of how it's clearly superior, I'll default to the intel's I've come to know and love as the brain of my computers.
Originally Posted by Lucjan:
The number after an AMD CPU name, like mine an Athlon 64 3200+, is how it performs to an Intel chip of that speed. 3200 MHz, 3.2 Ghz. Essentially a 2Ghz Athlon has the same performance as a 3.2Ghz Pentium.
I wouldn't say I'm married to Intel, I've considered amd chips..but I don't like the way they represent their processor speeds.
Originally Posted by Lucjan:
They do run slower. My 3200+ is like 2Ghz. Despite what Intel would have you believe faster clocks is not a better processor.
They say their chips are supposed to run the same or faster than their intel counterparts, but they look to me to run blatantly slower. All I'm saying is I don't see how 2.8 dual core athlon (after you mess with their stupid little formula) runs faster or equivilant than a 3.0 intel dc. Is it just because it has the name athlon in it?
Originally Posted by Lucjan:
It's the way the chips work. It's hard to explain. AMD is better for gaming because their CPU's are designed to run optimally under a heavy processing load. Like when your running a game. They can do more per cycle than an Intel chip of the same clock speed.
Nobody has really properly informed me as to why athlon is supposedly so much more of a better buy quality wise. They always just refer to "it's cheaper and just as good".. If I can't be given a solid, backed up example of how it's clearly superior, I'll default to the intel's I've come to know and love as the brain of my computers.
I'm off to google for some bench marks.
This is old but it gives a direct comparison between Athlon X2's and Pentium D's (800 series). For genral computing gaming and burning.
Here
hm..well I guess I'll be hopping on board with amd then. Newegg's 9 month payoff deal would be sweet with an amd 64 x2 4800+ and a suitable motherboard, any suggestions on a good mobo?