Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:

Regularly scheduled events

Shivering Isles Bug

Unofficial Elder Scrolls Pages reports a critical bug in the new Shivering Isles expansion for Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion (thanks Joystiq), along with advice on workarounds. Word is:

A very serious bug has been found with Shivering Isles that will render the game unplayable in many ways after about 50 to 120 hours of play (better FPS means bug hits earlier). The bug will occur regardless of whether you access SI content or not.

The bug is thoroughly confirmed on the PC. It is not known whether the bug affects Xbox users as well -- it is reasonable to assume that it would, but might not hit until around 150 hours of play assuming 30 FPS on Xbox.

While the situation appeared quite bad initially, a patch mod is now available for the PC and a tool is available to repair savegames that are affected by the bug or that are likely hit by it in the near future. Moreover, there is an official response from Bethesda:

Regarding the issue in which Form ID's are being used at a high rate in the Shivering Isles content; we are aware of the issue and we are currently looking into a solution. We appreciate your patience, especially from those of you affected by this issue, as we carefully work out a fix that will correct this problem without adding any new issues. --NothingCatchy, Developer

View
28 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >

28. Scottish wisdom Apr 11, 2007, 20:37 Icewind
 
I just want to say, for the record, that I love Scottish Martial Arts. Your comments made me happy, and to know I'm not the only "RPG Curmudgeon" here warms my heart.

It's a sad truth that the people coming into the PC RPG hobby right now all want real-time, watered down "Number-less" RPGs. This is why I still play the goldbox games, and why I think Temple of Elemental Evil was superb...even with the bugs.

I miss strategy. I miss difficulty. I lament the passing of the Action point gauge. Heck, I spent a year whining on the old interplay dragonplay tavern about how Baldur's Gate's combat was weak, watered down, and meant for children.

Now, I look at it, and realize that compared to what we have now, it's pretty damn good. I play it every couple of months now. That, Fallout 2, the goldbox games, and ToEE.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed Oblivion for what it is, but you know what I played for four hours straight last night after work? Daggerfall on Dosbox.

I say let the "new guys" have the hobby. I have two decades worth of "number heavy, stat heavy" CRPGs to play. They can have it.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
27. Re: Ack Apr 11, 2007, 02:28 Jerykk
 
Even in a first person shooter, combat is very abstracted. You have health points that are reduced when you are hit with bullets. When said healthy points reach zero you are dead.

Unless the game has realistic locational damage where one shot to the head means you are dead. And in most first person shooters, a headshot is indeed an instant kill, just like in real life.

When an in-game action is abstracted to the point that you have to use your imagination to fill in the blanks, and you are willing to use your imagination, said action will be fully real in your imagination.

But now you have another issue: Why even bother playing a video game if you have to make up most of the content with your own imagination? I can just go play a pen and paper game if I want to do that. One of the key strengths of the computer medium is that it can do things that traditional, pen and paper RPGs can't. A good, immersive computer RPG provides the player with everything they need to be immersed within the game's reality. It should provide the graphics, the sounds, the levels, the illusion of AI, etc. The only thing that players need to concern themselves with are the choices they make in the game. Do they focus their stats on building a nimble, stealthy character who can hide in the shadows or jump on roofs to avoid combat? Do they decide to align themselves with one faction over another? These are the things that should be left up to the player.

Your use of the word illusion is key, all that needs to be provided is an illusion that allows you to suspend your disbelief.

Except I can't suspend my disbelief enough to allow me to accept that I will take turns attacking and getting attacked by enemies. I can't suspend my disbelief to accept that an enemy will just stand there while I smash him with a sledgehammer or that I can somehow miss because the dice rolls turned out in his favor. Obviously all games require some suspension of disbelief. The problem is that turn-based gameplay evokes too much disbelief in RPGs whose main appeal to me is immersive game worlds.

I simply don't believe that there's a point in having computer RPGs that follow the same conventions as pen and paper games. The computer RPG will never be as open-ended as the pen and paper RPG because it is limited by the content created by the developers, whereas pen and paper RPGs are limited by the players' imaginations. So what's the point?

For example, I find Thief: The Dark Project to far, far more immersive than Thief: Deadly Shadows. This is because I am mentally able to accept the abstracted graphics of TDP and therefore demand much less of them, in TDS all I can think about is how awkward the walking animation of the characters is.

I'm the exact opposite. I have to play games within their appropriate context (i.e. within the few months after the game's release) because I simply can't get immersed in a game with crappy graphics.

And frankly, given how poor the Bethesda design and writing staff is, I want them to take as few risks as a possible.

Actually, the books in Oblivion are actually well written. It's strange that the actual quest lines had such inferior writing. If they get the writer(s) who wrote the books to handle the storylines in Fallout 3, they should turn out well.

This comment was edited on Apr 11, 02:34.
 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
26. Re: Ack Apr 11, 2007, 01:36 Scottish Martial Arts
 
In RPGs, I want to be immersed in the game world.

There's nothing more annoying to me then walking right up to an enemy, swinging a melee weapon and then seeing "Miss" appear above the enemy.

All games are necessarily abstractions of reality, they differ only in the degree to which they are abstracted. Even in a first person shooter, combat is very abstracted. You have health points that are reduced when you are hit with bullets. When said healthy points reach zero you are dead. Hardly the way it works in real life is it? Even if we were to have some sort of damage modeling where the path of the bullet through the body is calculated, where bone fractures and tissue damage is calculated, and the degree to which the bullet injury immobilizes you and the amount of time you have before you pass out from blood loss is determined based off of those calculations, it is still an abstraction. It's still numbers being crunched to determine an outcome to a purely hypothetical (since it's in a game) action.

It is important to note that decreased abstraction does not necessarily lead to increased immersion. There is in fact a threshold past which decreased abstraction hurts immersion. When an in-game action is abstracted to the point that you have to use your imagination to fill in the blanks, and you are willing to use your imagination, said action will be fully real in your imagination. When said action is not abstracted and it's depiction is fully in game and not in the imagination, then the depiction in game needs to be that much more accurate for the player to accept it. Take for example the dialog in Planescape: Torment. In the mortuary you encounter various zombies, whose appearance is described in the dialog text. By abstracting the appearance of the zombie, the developer does not have the burden of creating a completely realistic depiction of said appearance. If the zombie were rendered in a 3D engine, it would 1) take a tremendous amount of work to get the zombie to have a realistic depiction of what was originally in the text description and 2) the zombie would still look like a 3D render not a real character. The closer we get to photo-realism the further away it becomes. As we give up less and less of the responsibility of imagining an image or action, we demand that the image or depiction be that much more realistic, ever moving the bar just out of reach of a game artist. Eventually we'll get there but for the forseeable future game art will continue to look fake. This goes back to the threshold at which decreased abstraction actually leads to decreased immersion. Where as in a highly abstracted game we don't expect things to look real, in a non-abstracted game we do, and the failings become that much more salient. Suddenly we notice how the ragdoll death animation leads to awkward death poses, we notice how everyone's skin looks platicky, we notice the infinitely sharp edges of the geometry, all of this pulls us out of the environment instead of pulling us in. For example, I find Thief: The Dark Project to far, far more immersive than Thief: Deadly Shadows. This is because I am mentally able to accept the abstracted graphics of TDP and therefore demand much less of them, in TDS all I can think about is how awkward the walking animation of the characters is.

I've talked a lot about graphics here because I wanted to illustrate that the less abstract the game gets, the necessary realism of what is depicted gets exponentially higher. If the necessary realism is not met then immersion suffers. Therefore, a more abstract game can sometime be the more immersive; it's all a matter of suspension of disbelief. Take theatre versus cinema. Theatre is necessarily more abstracted but good theatre can be just as immersive, if not more so, than cinema. In fact, because of theatre's abstraction, theatre has to focus on different dramatic elements than cinema to immerse the audience. Theatre therefore often has a much stronger emphasis on characterization than cinema. In cinema, any action of the plot can (theoretically) be depicted. In theatre, the actions that can be depicted are much smaller therefore the focus shifts away from plot and onto the characters themselves and their emotions. This creates a fundamentally different dramatic experience.

Why bring up the distinction between theatre and cinema? Because while similar media, they provide very different experiences and there remains room for both. An abstracted, traditional CRPG provides a different experience than Oblivion. Because the action is abstracted, layers of gameplay are opened up in the traditional CRPG that simply are not possible in a game like Oblivion. Oblivion's gameplay is not an improved version of a traditional CRPG, in fact it's more accurate to say that Oblivion's gameplay is a toned-down version of what exists in traditional CRPGs. That can be the cost of moving away from a more abstracted experience. That's not to say that an Oblivion style game is necessarily worse, (although I can think of a half dozen traditional CRPGs that are, to my mind, objectively better games) but that you make trade offs when you move away from abstracted gameplay. It is therefore quite foolish to assume that all games should move away from abstraction; to do so is to ignore what is being lost in such a movement. Instead, there should be room for both abstracted games and minimally abstracted games, like there is room for both theatre and cinema.

Unfortunately, traditional CRPGs seem to forgo the illusion of living, thinking characters.

One example does not prove a generalization. And NWN2 is a bad example I might add. Yes, for some reason NWN2 does not punish a character for failing a pickpocked attempt. That however is not a result of NWN2 being a more traditional CRPG, and is not indicative of all traditional CRPGs. In Fallout, if you failed a pick pocked attempt against the wrong type of person they'd pull a gun and open up on you. In Deus Ex: Invisible War, you could pick the lock to some guys safe right before his eyes and he would do absolutely nothing. I totally agree that not depicting a consequence for failed thievery is poor game design, but that is definitely not a necessary consequence of more abstracted gameplay.

When I play an RPG, I want an immersive game world with believable characters who react to me and the world with an illusion of intelligence.

A game doesn't need to be real time with full player control for there to be "an immersive gameworld with believable characters... and... an illusion of intelligence". Your use of the word illusion is key, all that needs to be provided is an illusion that allows you to suspend your disbelief. A game does not need to minimally abstracted to maintain an illusion, all it needs to do is allow you to suspend your disbelief. If a game can do that, it can be as abstracted as it wants and it can still be immersive. Fallout did that, Baldur's Gate did that, Planescape: Torment did that, Arcanum did that.

I don't mean to say that all games should be more abstracted. Rather, a more abstracted game has a different flavor of gameplay that is often more complex than what can exist in a less abstracted game. If we focus only on making a game look realistic, then the gameplay suffers. And of course this is the direction in which the industry has been moving. How many dumbed down but better looking sequels have you played? How favorite franchises have been consolized? That doesn't mean there isn't room for "dumbed down" titles but if that's all we're going to have then we lose some unique brands of gameplay. The traditional CRPG is one such unique brand of gameplay that is quickly dying out. My concern is that Oblivion is hastening it's death.

Except what's the point of making a sequel if you aren't going to improve it?

Where did I say that Fallout 3 should improve on the weaknesses of Fallout 1 and 2? My point isn't that improvements should be made but that what isn't broken shouldn't be fixed. Fallout had a core design that worked very, very well. The only iteration on that core design was Fallout 2. There is still plenty of room to iterate and improve on the core Fallout design. Given how good Fallout 1 and 2 were, my vote is that Fallout 3 should iterate on what is already established. It's not like this is Tomb Raider or Rainbow Six, where everyone has grown sick and tired of the existing design. Rather this is a successful design that for whatever reason hasn't been fully explored or tapped. Why throw that work away for something new and different? Iterate on the existing design and bring it as close to perfection as possible; there is still plenty of room for improvement. Oblivion with Guns in the Desert, on the other hand, is just a wasted opportunity that does nothing with the already existing design. And frankly, given how poor the Bethesda design and writing staff is, I want them to take as few risks as a possible.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
25. Re: Ack Apr 11, 2007, 00:21 OpticNerve
 
Icewind: If the NPC that "broke" for you is the one who goes around stealing items, then there's two player-made fixes for him. One which ups his sneaking skills and another which makes it so that him stealing won't be a crime and people won't kill him when he gets caught.

Oblivion and now Shivering Isles has really made me dislike Bethesda as a company. Time and time again, they've just really shown how little they care about their fans (especially the PC community) by their lack of support on the forums, lack of support in patches (they STILL haven't fixed the frozen animation bug), trying to milk players with "plug-ins," (and screwing them over by packaging them all in the first expansion), the whole NIF exporter issue for modders and just a bunch of other things that have added up bit by bit.

It's amazing how I can like the game so much (when fully modded of course) and yet dislike the developers as well. And it seems like I'm not alone in that feeling when you browse around the official forums.

This really, really makes me sad that Bethesda is developing Fallout 3...

 
Avatar 23638
 
http://theopticnerve.deviantart.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
24. Re: Ack Apr 10, 2007, 23:51 Jerykk
 
The difference between any other computer game and an "antiquated" traditional CRPG is not whether or not "lots of numbers" are being crunched but rather to what extent outcomes are governed by player skill.

While there are certainly merits to turn-based gameplay, they simply conflict with what I look for in RPGs. In RPGs, I want to be immersed in the game world. I want to feel like I'm there and to accomplish that feeling, I need to have complete control over my character. There's nothing more annoying to me then walking right up to an enemy, swinging a melee weapon and then seeing "Miss" appear above the enemy. It simply isn't logical. If the enemy was actively dodging and moving around, it might make sense but when they are simply standing there, it is retarded and wholly unsatisfying. Likewise, when I take a gun, aim it at an enemy's head and pull the trigger, I expect it to hit the enemy in the head unless the gun itself has a very low accuracy rating. Determining the outcome of a player's action solely from dice rolls leaves too much to chance and not enough to skill.

A key factor of any human-computer interaction is logical, consistent responses. If I double-click an icon, it should always launch the respective application. If I swing a sword at an enemy and it looks like it hit, then it should indeed count as a hit. When you remove this predictability of outcome, you remove the player's sense of control.

There is a way to balance stats and skill. I think Deus Ex did it wonderfully. With guns, your stats affected how long it takes your reticle to focus. The higher the stats, the less time to focus. This is a reasonable compromise between stats and skill because it can be applied to real life. In reality, people unexperienced with guns take some time to steady their aim and focus on the target.

Other stats, like hacking, weren't based on chance or dice rolls. The higher your hacking stat, the more time you had to hack. All of the character stats had predictable outcomes. The higher the stat, the easier it is to use your skills.

AI is non-existent at this time; we cannot get a computer to think for itself, it can only calculate.

True AI is non-existent but at least we can provide an illusion for it. For example, in NWN2, I can walk up to an NPC, attempt to pickpocket him, fail miserably and then... walk away as if nothing happened. The NPC won't react to my botched attempt to steal from him. In cases such as these, the illusion of AI is completely shattered, detracting from the immersion of the game. Similarly, in a combat scenario, watching enemies simply stand there and take turns attacking sucks me out of the experience. At the very least, they should be actively dodging, seeking cover, trying to flank me, etc. If they are clearly losing, they might retreat. If they see that I'm hurting badly and that they outnumber me, they should become more aggressive and careless.

While things like this may not be true AI, they at least convey a sense that the characters are able to think and react realistically. Unfortunately, traditional CRPGs seem to forgo the illusion of living, thinking characters.

And no, I didn't especially like the Fallout games as I dislike turn-based gameplay. However, I did love the setting and writing. I want to like Fallout 3 so I'm hoping they eschew turn-based combat in favor of a more realistic and immersive real-time experience.

So there you have it. When I play an RPG, I don't want a tactical experience. If I want that, I'll play Chess. Or Worms. When I play an RPG, I want an immersive game world with believable characters who react to me and the world with an illusion of intelligence. I want the freedom to play as I want to play without stats causing me to randomly fail actions that clearly should have succeeded. I want a dynamic experience where my choices matter.

Fallout fans have been so consistently screwed over, it would be nice if just once we could get more of what was so great to begin with, it's not like it's been imitated a million times elsewhere since Fallout 2 was released.

Except what's the point of making a sequel if you aren't going to improve it? I'd love to see a proper sequel to Tribes but I wouldn't just want the exact same game with better graphics. I would want a better game. You can argue that the Fallout games were perfect but realistically, there are always improvements that can be made.

 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
23. Re: Ack Apr 10, 2007, 21:39 Scottish Martial Arts
 
The problem with traditional CRPGs is that they are indeed antiquated.

Hardly. I probably replay the Fallout and Infinity Engine games at least once a year. They are still just as enjoyable to play, with maybe the exception of BG1, as they were when they were first released. There are a lot of shooters and RTS game from not even four years ago that feel completely out of date now. Granted this is subjective opinion on my part, but my own experience is that a well made game stands the test of time irrespective of whether or not it uses "lots of numbers" and "antiquated" gameplay systems (read: rule based gameplay). Fallout may be "antiquated" but there is a lot of very detailed stuff to do in that game, contrast this with the very superficial, however enjoyable, gameplay of Oblivion.

meaning lots of numbers

All computer games are based upon numbers and statistics. Ballistic modeling in first person shooters is all based upon numbers, as is the amount of damage said weapons do vs. certain types of enemies/armor. The difference between any other computer game and an "antiquated" traditional CRPG is not whether or not "lots of numbers" are being crunched but rather to what extent outcomes are governed by player skill. You seem to be implying that any game that seeks to insulate outcomes from player skill is worse for it. It's not worse though, just different. A different kind of gameplay arises when the outcomes of actions are insulated from player skill that isn't possible when the player is in complete control of the outcome.

To use an example outside of RPGs, consider morale in the Total War games. You have no direct control over your units' morale. You as the player cannot tell the computer: "My morale as the player is fine therefore my units should have good morale as well". Instead environmental factors modeled through "lots of numbers" and statistics control your units' morale. What this means however is that you as the player have to position your units such that they support each other and increase each other's morale. You must also prevent them from getting encircled or flanked, as that dramatically reduces their morale and can cause them to rout. Also consider that veteran troops have higher morale, which means that veteran units can get pressured on a flank and still continue to fight on without collapsing. By having, an uncontrollable, purely stat driven gameplay element, you add a whole new layer into the player's thinking and actions that simply wouldn't be possible if everything was purely under player control.

Let's bring this back to an RPG. In Jagged Alliance 2, you as the player don't control whether or not your shotgun blast will hit it's target. What you can do is consider the range to the target, the amount of cover the target has, your character's stance, etc. and then make adjustments accordingly so that your shotgun blast has a higher likelihood of actually hitting the target. In a shooter it's just a matter of getting the crosshair over the target and clicking, in a turn based RPG however it's your thinking, planning and an element of chance that determine your success. The shooter is a more exciting and visceral experience, but the turn based game can ultimately be more satisfying because it rewards a cerebral rather than reflexive approach.

but very few things that actually take advantage of the computer medium. I want AI in my games, I want real-time combat where I have direct control over my character's every move and I don't want every single thing to be reliant on my stats.

One could make the argument that turn and stat based games take far better advantage of the computer medium than real time twitch based games. The primary reason is AI. AI is non-existent at this time; we cannot get a computer to think for itself, it can only calculate. AI as it exists isn't intelligence but rather a series of IF THEN scripts. There is an obvious limit to how far this can go. Just load up any real time game, be it shooter, RPG, strategy or otherwise and you'll see stupid AI that will never, ever outsmart the player. In a turn based setting however the computer's strength at calculating can actually be exploited. Consider how Deep Blue beat Kasparov. In a turn based setting a computer can calculate all the potential actions and their outcomes and decide accordingly. In a turn based setting a computer can actually overcome a human mind because it doesn't need to think, as it does in a real time setting, but merely needs to calculate. And a human mind cannot calculate as fast as a computer. Therefore, until true AI is developed, a game will only truly play the strengths of a computer in a turn based setting.

To be honest, if Fallout 3 turns out exactly like Fallout 1 and 2, only with better graphics, I'll be really disappointed.

Fallout 1 and 2 are both universally acclaimed games. There are also very, very few games remotely similar to Fallout 1 and 2. Why the fuck should any developer try to make a new Fallout MORE like other, more popular games? The Fallout game design is a design that works incredibly well and a design that has had very few imitators. Why can't a new Fallout play on the strengths of the original design? Why should it be made to be more like already existing games? There are no other games like Fallout, why would you want Fallout to lose that uniqueness? Did you even like Fallout to begin with? If not then why the fuck should you care what the game is like? Fallout fans have been so consistently screwed over, it would be nice if just once we could get more of what was so great to begin with, it's not like it's been imitated a million times elsewhere since Fallout 2 was released.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
22. Re: Ack Apr 10, 2007, 20:16 Jerykk
 
The problem with traditional CRPGs is that they are indeed antiquated. They were designed with the pen & paper format in mind, meaning lots of numbers but very few things that actually take advantage of the computer medium. I want AI in my games, I want real-time combat where I have direct control over my character's every move and I don't want every single thing to be reliant on my stats. My stats should certainly play a large factor but they shouldn't be the only factor. That said, I still want the freedom and choice of the old CRPGs, as those are the defining aspects of RPGs.

To be honest, if Fallout 3 turns out exactly like Fallout 1 and 2, only with better graphics, I'll be really disappointed.

 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
21. Re: Ack Apr 10, 2007, 19:42 Scottish Martial Arts
 
They're one of the last great indie companies which continue to develop and publish their own titles.

They're alright. My major problem with Oblivion is that it seems like the gaming press and the gaming community at large is hoisting it up as the new model for CRPGs despite having much more in common with the Legend of Zelda and Grand Theft Auto than Fallout or Baldur's Gate.

To my mind, Oblivion is a significant break from the earlier Elder Scrolls games. The earlier iterations of the series were sandbox games first and foremost. The content of the games was meant to serve as a vehicle through which the player creates his or her own story. The point of climbing the ranks of the fighter's guild is to serve your character's motivations and story. In contrast, the fighter's guild quest line in Oblivion is primarily a vehicle through which the developers can tell a story about the conflict between the Fighter's Guild and the upstart Blackwood Company. The focus is shifted away from the player's story and to the developer's own scripted story. This goes against the whole point of the Elder Scrolls series.

In losing the earlier Elder Scrolls' focus on player created story, Oblivion has lost what made the Elder Scrolls an RPG. Let's face it, the basic gameplay of the Elder Scrolls games has always been that of an action-adventure game. What elevated it to RPG was the gameworld's reactive and sand box nature. This still exists to a lesser extent in Oblivion, but rather than enhancing the sandbox aspects of the series they have toned them down and shifted to a much more linear and scripted focus. Oblivion has therefore lost the RPG element of the Elder Scrolls and is instead "just" an action-adventure.

To be clear, it is a great action-adventure but I'm going to be pretty upset if Oblivion really does become the new standard for CRPGs. The pulled 1UP review of NWN2 makes it pretty clear that at least a significant segment of the game buying public thinks all future CRPGs should be like Oblivion. If that's the case then Oblivion has further contributed to the death of the traditional CRPG. I like Oblivion despite it's flaws, but what really irks me about all the hyperbolic praise it gets is the concern that the success of Oblivion will make it that much harder for a traditional CRPG to get a green light. Afterall, if gamers and game critics are saying that a CRPG that isn't like Oblivion is antiquated (see 1UP review) then you can be damn sure publishers will say the same thing when a traditional CRPG gets pitched. I'm gonna be pretty disappointed if we never see another game like Baldur's Gate 2 or Fallout.

Speaking of Fallout, that's the other reason why I'm less the happy with Bethesda these days. With Oblivion, Bethesda has really moved away from the focus of the Elder Scrolls. If Bethesda can lose sight of the original focus and vision of it's own franchise, how can anyone expect them to maintain the focus and vision of Fallout, a series with which they have no development experience? If Fallout 3 is Oblivion with Guns in the Desert, I'm going to be seriously pissed. I'll guess we'll find out if that's the case this summer.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
20. Re: Ack Apr 10, 2007, 17:34 Parallax Abstraction
 
I hope it doesn't hurt Bethesda, but only so long as they actually learn something. Their last number of titles have had abysmal quality assurance, including the console releases. If they can't be bothered to test their games properly, then they deserve a little hurt.

Parallax Abstraction
Ottawa, Canada
Help Fix The Broken Xbox Live Marketplace: http://brokenxblm.blogspot.com
 
Parallax Abstraction
Geek Bravado | YouTube (Watch/Rate/Comment on my shows!)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
19. Ack Apr 10, 2007, 15:22 Kxmode
 
That's brutal. I hope this doesn't hurt Bethesda. They're one of the last great indie companies which continue to develop and publish their own titles. I am aware that Bethesda is owned by ZeniMax Media. However considering ZeniMax was co-founded by Christopher Weaver (also founded Bethesda Softworks) I think it's safe to say that Bethesda, for all intents and purposes, is still an indie publisher.


-----
http://www.gamemusicjukebox.com/
http://music.download.com/kxmode
This comment was edited on Apr 10, 15:23.
 
Avatar 18786
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18. No subject Apr 10, 2007, 14:30 Nameless Again
 
I experienced the slow animation bug in the original Oblivion and that put the kaibosh on my playing. And Bethesda never did bother fixing it. Had to wait for the community to figure it out and then issue a mod "fix".

Bethesda, I said it back then and I'm saying it now. Get with the fucking program. Fix bugs, then release new content. In that order.

Dumbasses.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. No subject Apr 10, 2007, 09:10 Brainp0wa
 
Stop it Creston, you're killing me with the...

You guys put the fuck in fucktards.

LOL

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: No subject Apr 10, 2007, 08:21 Overon
 
I don't understand this bug. Can someone explain it? And who or what is "Wrye"?

Bethesda is on a roll. Star Trek Legacy was very godawful.

And now this. I just don't understand how well selling game likes oblivion and this can have these kinds of bugs. It's like a race to the bottom. Keep the development cost as low as possible without doing quality testing.

It's like developers rely on unofficial patches from the community to fix their shit. It's like free development from the community. Not only does the buyer beta test for them, some also fix their bugs.

This comment was edited on Apr 10, 08:58.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: No subject Apr 10, 2007, 04:27 Jerykk
 
Hmm, wait, so the amount of hours they are talking about includes regular Oblivion too? In that case, I have well over two hundred hours played. I haven't experienced any weird things in Shivering Isles, though, at one point, a bunch of guards started chasing this one NPC for no apparent reason. I think he survived.

 
Avatar 20715
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: No subject Apr 10, 2007, 03:52 Parallax Abstraction
 
I've never heard of this before (I have an Oblivion game about 85 hours in and haven't played in months) but I was experiencing problems where my frame rate would drop into single digits in certain towns and I couldn't figure out why. It would appear that this issue is the cause. I haven't bought Shivering Isles yet and definitely won't touch it until an official patch is released and only once I've heard if it introduces any new issues or breaks mods. Do you have a link for the mod fix tool Creston?

Parallax Abstraction
Ottawa, Canada
Help Fix The Broken Xbox Live Marketplace: http://brokenxblm.blogspot.com
 
Parallax Abstraction
Geek Bravado | YouTube (Watch/Rate/Comment on my shows!)
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: No subject Apr 10, 2007, 03:30 Icewind
 
I would normally think that Half-Elf, but a box popped up after the Argonian's death saying "you have killed the quest giver and this quest cannot be completed" or some such thing. According to some board members I talked to about this on beth's site, it wasn't suppose to happen.

Eh well. I hate lizardfolk anyway.

As for what the "bug" does, it apparently uses up all the item IDs in the game at some point, eventually causing no new items to spawn or previous items disappear to make room for the new ones. That could be devestating if one of those removed items is a crucial quest item.

I remember a bug in Vanilla Oblivion where supposedly you would suffer huge framerate drop after your 150th hour of play in any one saved game slot. there was a hack to solve it, but my longest save slot is at about 87 hours, so I never encoutnered it.

This comment was edited on Apr 10, 03:34.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: No subject Apr 10, 2007, 01:57 The Half Elf
 
psst Creston.. it's not a bug, it's the 'Radiant AI' they were telling us all about

Well it seems Beth is on a roll lately, first Oblivion, then Star Trek Legacy, and now Oblivion 'The official expansion'.


Btw what exactly is 'the bug' and what will it do exactly between 50 to 120 hours into the game?

 
Avatar 12670
 
"I've never seen a feature like this before. It warms your ass. It's wonderful" -Walter Bishop
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. No subject Apr 10, 2007, 01:53 Icewind
 
Well, I checked that website and looked at the Form ID (hex number) of an item after dropping it, and apparently I'm ok. It's still at FFxxxxx. I also checked it by taking their other test, which was drop an item, save, then reload and see if it was still there and it was.

I think the script messing up was just do to some random variable Bethesda didn't account for. Insufficient Q&A budget perhaps? Typical of them...and others.

I might as well DL the fix now before it DOES become a problem though. Hope no one finds themselves too far gone and is unable to recover their save. Talk about shitty programming.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: No subject Apr 10, 2007, 01:03 Creston
 
but by the looks of this bit of news, I guess not

Faction bugs are a common side-effect of formID problems. Try a savegame from just before that happened, and use Wrye Bash to reset your formID counter.

Worked for me (even though I hadn't noticed anything weird yet.)

Creston


 
Avatar 15604
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. No subject Apr 10, 2007, 00:58 Icewind
 
Sounds like Gothic 3. You basically have bugs that will cripple NPC/plot scripts even when you aren't in those cells in which they initially fire.

My save game is around 60 hours, and I noticed when I hit sheogorath's city that the lizard asking for the Fork of Horipulation, after conversing with me, turned around to see every guard in town (and some townspeople) attack him. Caused chaos throughout the city as factions bumped up against each other and half the town lay dead at my feet...without me even unsheathing my sword or casting a single spell.

I thought maybe it was suppose to be that way, you know, his city being the seat of madness and all of that...but by the looks of this bit of news, I guess not.

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
28 Replies. 2 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 2 ] Older >


footer

.. .. ..

Blue's News logo