Off topic: How are games failing you?

[llamabeast]

Actually I reckon Alchemy in Oblivion is overpowered. I got to the point where I just had to poison tough baddies with a couple of my good poisons and they were doomed, then I just had to keep out of their way.

That's with Alchemy 75 or so.

Unfortunately I find it impossible to resist Alchemy in Oblivion (you can't just not pick up all that free stuff), and as a result the game sometimes becomes a herb collection game.

[Agema]

Ultimately, games like Oblivion do require you beat things over the head or spellblast them very hard. I don't think they were ever intended as games where you can neglect combat, but as games where you have a large range of skills to supplement combat, or have a valid means of often avoiding combat. Most skills certainly allow you to approach missions in different ways.

This can seem disappointing, but to design a game where your herbalist/alchemist has a valid finish would be extremely hard. RPGs used to be nothing but combat grind: Might and Magic, the early Ultimas, Eye Of The Beholder up to Neverwinter Nights. Ultima 7 I think was the first where you could do more with your world, but it's the likes of Oblivion that are developing it and furthest ahead, and that development is still young.

[Aezeal]

hehe conflicting opinions must mean the truth lies in the middle. I myself had high alchemy and other non comabt stuff too, next to something melee and magic and it didn't bother me.

I agree that especially Oblivion gives more options for the non combat skills. And I agree too that a game where a herbalist can save the world would probably not be very exciting and I wouldn't want it.

[Tifone]

@ Agema - played the Might and Magic VI VII and VIII - the 8 sucked but the previous ones were very good, I remember they had not only combat, but also very interesting stories and subquests. Remember the monoliths?

[Agema]

I played M&M 3-9, although I didn't finish VII or VIII because I got bored, and after a lengthy time investment a bug killed my M&M IX game as I couldn't promote a character. I-V are the "old style" ones with turns and discrete squares like Eye Of the Beholder up to about 1994, VI onwards the 3-D ones with continuous movement released after 1996, although that style of RPG was by then obsolete by then. Nevertheless, you're right that the stories kept them viable when all else was miles behind their competitors.

If you liked those, I would heavily recommend Wizardry 8 (released 2002?) which was contemporaneous to the late M&Ms you played and I think rather better in all areas, and going back to the old turn & map square style, Wizardry VII (it came out about 10 years before 8). Also maybe the Realms of Arkania trilogy, which was about mid-90s.

[JimMorrison]

Well it's not just like he was -just- a Sneaky Herbalist. It's just that those 3 skills developed far faster than the combat skills, and when they capped, the character felt entirely crippled.

I can't recall working with poisons much though, just making crazy buffing potions and such. They were pretty amazing, but the potions that made my char strong enough to fight anything confidently, required rather exotic and rare materials.

I suppose you could say that Oblivion is ahead of the rest in the realm of "single character diversification", but again, that goes back to the problem of the solo-centric RPG atmosphere that predominates now.

The problem I had with the whole situation, is that in a game that does not auto-adjust the difficulty based on an abstracted sum of your powers, you can do what I did without penalty. Maybe I misread what they were trying to accomplish, but I thought the point was that encounters don't become totally trivial, not that every damned Boar you run into in the countryside is the fight of your life, just like the first one you ever met. I was playing a role, to be sure. It wasn't intended to be the role of the Sneaky Herbalist, that was meant to be my key to efficient progress. Instead, the game left my character behind.

And Aezeal, I agree, the full truth lies somewhere inbetween. Or at least, the perfect world does. I just don't believe there should be the potential to play 50 hours into a game, and create a total dead end without actually losing the game. I mean I could continue playing, but it was aggravating, and looked like a slow path of attrition (the herbs I needed for the potions that I needed to survive, were not easy to find at the rate I had to drink them).

[llamabeast]

You should get one of the big mods, like OOO. They do a half-level-scaling thing. So a rat might scale with you up to level 5, then stop. A bandit might (say) be level 8 up until you're level 8, stick with your levels through to level 12, but never level any higher than that. I think it's a fairly clever compromise.

Oblivion's system is silly in a number of ways though. What some people do is set completely pointless things to be their Major Skills (Mercantile and so on), while building up the useful combat skills as minor skills. Since levelling only depends on the major skills, they can easily get to the end of the game as a level 1, and the monsters all the way through are pretty trivial to beat. Ridiculous!

[Agema]

The other weakness is min-maxing stats from level development, no matter what skills you want. For instance, if you're about to go up a level, spam a spell or skill action to get 10 points, guarantee yourself +5 stat increase.

If people want to min-max or break the system, it's up to them. I'm quite happy for it to exist as it's a 1-player game, and doesn't ruin my gaming experience in multiplayer.

[Omnirizon]

speaking of Ultimas, one of my favorite Ultimas was also the next to most disliked: Ultima 8: Pagan

It tried to actually do something kinda neat and add some Adventury-Actiony elements to Ultima wrapped up in a really cool, dark themed world. It had neat magics and a ton of just fun little things to seek out and do and see. It really made you feel like exploring the world.

It was rejected by the player-base because it was... Hell I don't know why. I think it was too different from the typical Ultima format.

[thejeff]

As one who rejected Ultima 8: I don't think I rejected it because it was too different. I think I just didn't like the changes. That sounds the same but isn't really. It was a long time ago, but from what I remember it played very differently. If I hadn't been fond of the previous Ultimas, I probably wouldn't even have tried it. Not because they changed my precious Ultima, but because it was a different style of game and not one that I liked.
It's a hazard of making a big change in a franchise. Some of those who liked the style of the original won't like the new style and many of those who didn't like the original won't bother trying the new one.