May i remind people that we have a designated thread to rant and rave about Oblivion. Let's keep this one to Fallout3!!
Tell me what paths can you take in Oblivion not involving combat that allow you to finish main quest? That make you feel you play a specific role?
Did I stated that any of the RPGs I mentioned allowed to finish main plot without a fight? For an example in FO2 you could limit number of fights to a few. And it maybe that I just dont know how to accomplish peacefull solutions(or didnt have stats for it). So on one side we have Fallout 2 with many possible ways to solve quests and Oblivion with just one way. And you call my argumentation flawed?
Also what things can I do in Oblivion that I cannot do in other RPGs? Lift things up by pressing 'Z' button? Bounce and pounce through lash forests which are filled with bandits rather than wildlife? So what can I do? Honestly maybe thats my problem with Oblivion, there are so many things to do that I get lost in it......
To you it is not an rpg, but guess what you are not the end all be all of rpg or not rpg games. I loved it, it had some flaws but you name a game that doesn't.
I would love to hear the perfect rpg you have played.
Here's what I cRPG fans consider the defining aspect of a true RPG:
Choices and Consequences
In other words, you choose what actions your character takes, and as a result, the storyline of the game is changed. This is the true essence of a cRPG, plain and simple.
In Oblivion, there were no real choices. Sometimes a quest would have one or two different ways to complete it, but the conclusion was always the same.
The only real choice you had was whether to do the quest or not.
There were never any actual alternate endings. And no matter what happened, there were no consequences in the storyline.
Even if you join the Dark Brotherhood and murder hundreds of people, you can still become the hero of Tamriel by helping Martin Septim defeat the evil demon. The story still plays out exactly the same every time.
In a cRPG like (to cite a recent example) The Witcher, if you decide to help the elf rebels fight against the Order of the Flaming Rose that is persecuting them, then a Flaming Rose character who could have helped you will refuse to do so, and will eventually be killed as a result of your actions. You will also get a completely different ending to the game. Choices and consequences.
My list of "perfect" cRPGs (if "perfect" = really good): Baldur's Gate II, Planescape: Torment, The Witcher, Fallout, and SW:KotOR
Sorry everyone that I wanted to hear some argumentation behind "Oblivion is a great cRPG. You can do so much things in it.". I know I shouldn't expect nothing else. Afterall its me who's obnoxious and have a mind made u.
Sorry everyone that I wanted to hear some argumentation behind "Oblivion is a great cRPG. You can do so much things in it.".
Here's what I cRPG fans consider the defining aspect of a true RPG:
Choices and Consequences
In other words, you choose what actions your character takes, and as a result, the storyline of the game is changed. This is the true essence of a cRPG, plain and simple.
Fallout 3 is fallout and guess what its insanely fun and thats all that matters.
Bingo.So far it sounds like it isn't exactly the Fallout we know and love but it's not that bad as just a fun game.
since the thread is thoroughly derailed I'll add my 2cts too. What was said above by Moriendor and Dhruin is my position as well, these are different types of cRPG's and I have enjoyed both in the past. What I miss (and in that sense, what my hopes for FO3 and the next TES are and were) however, is a stronger convergence of the two shools of thought. It is my conviction that sandbox games would profit from stronger emphasis on choice and consequence. Why? Ultimately I guess because I am after a good balance of entertainment and believability. It makes a game more fun to me if my actions have believable, sometimes unexpected consequences (The Witcher, Fallout). I love to have an open world to roam and discover (TES). I like to have the freedom to just make up my own agenda, to make my characters career the story (TES, M&B). The Gothics were so great to me because they are somewhere in that middle ground. With Oblivion, Bethesda somewhat went back to the pure do anything sandbox style of Daggerfall (but without the greatness of Daggerfalls character system), withering the tender shoots of choice and consequence that had grown in Morrowind, instead of developing them. That I guess is why I disliked Oblivion, and what I need to know about FO3 - where does it fall in that continuum?
Did you play Gothic 1&2? What do you think of them compared to Oblivion?
since the thread is thoroughly derailed I'll add my 2cts too. What was said above by Moriendor and Dhruin is my position as well, these are different types of cRPG's and I have enjoyed both in the past. What I miss (and in that sense, what my hopes for FO3 and the next TES are and were) however, is a stronger convergence of the two shools of thought. It is my conviction that sandbox games would profit from stronger emphasis on choice and consequence. Why? Ultimately I guess because I am after a good balance of entertainment and believability. It makes a game more fun to me if my actions have believable, sometimes unexpected consequences (The Witcher, Fallout). I love to have an open world to roam and discover (TES). I like to have the freedom to just make up my own agenda, to make my characters career the story (TES, M&B). The Gothics were so great to me because they are somewhere in that middle ground. With Oblivion, Bethesda somewhat went back to the pure do anything sandbox style of Daggerfall (but without the greatness of Daggerfalls character system), withering the tender shoots of choice and consequence that had grown in Morrowind, instead of developing them. That I guess is why I disliked Oblivion, and what I need to know about FO3 - where does it fall in that continuum?