WIzardry 6 7 & 8 are too dated.
I'm finally a part of this century:
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.
Not the remake, but if you want to do that, go qahead.
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 13:58:51 -0500, Locus Bring'r
<horchata12839@gmail.com> wrote:
WIzardry 6 7 & 8 are too dated.
I'm finally a part of this century:
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.
Not the remake, but if you want to do that, go qahead.
I started playing the Remaster last night. It's pretty, but that's the
most I can really say about it. Its feels very much like a last-gen
Bethesda CRPG. For it's time (that time being 2006), "Oblivion" was
pushing the envelope in some areas, but it's dated now.
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 13:58:51 -0500, Locus Bring'r
<horchata12839@gmail.com> wrote:
WIzardry 6 7 & 8 are too dated.
I'm finally a part of this century:
   Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.
Not the remake, but if you want to do that, go qahead.
I started playing the Remaster last night. It's pretty, but that's the
most I can really say about it. Its feels very much like a last-gen
Bethesda CRPG. For it's time (that time being 2006), "Oblivion" was
pushing the envelope in some areas, but it's dated now.
The envelope it's pushing for me is that it is an ES game. I could get
the same benefit from Arena if it were available. There's something
about ES that reminds me of Ultima III and Ultima IV.
WIzardry 6 7 & 8 are too dated.
I'm finally a part of this century:
  Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.
Not the remake, but if you want to do that, go qahead.
On 7/7/2025 8:58 PM, Locus Bring'r wrote:
WIzardry 6 7 & 8 are too dated.
I'm finally a part of this century:
   Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.
Not the remake, but if you want to do that, go qahead.
Hmm... I tried to get into Oblivion at one point after starting Skyrim,
but somehow the interface totally turned me off. Oblivion came out in a
time when I was just not playing all that many games, so I don't even
have nostalgia for it.
On 7/7/2025 8:58 PM, Locus Bring'r wrote:
WIzardry 6 7 & 8 are too dated.
I'm finally a part of this century:
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.
Not the remake, but if you want to do that, go qahead.
Hmm... I tried to get into Oblivion at one point after starting Skyrim,
but somehow the interface totally turned me off. Oblivion came out in a
time when I was just not playing all that many games, so I don't even
have nostalgia for it.
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 16:50:54 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
On 7/7/2025 8:58 PM, Locus Bring'r wrote:
WIzardry 6 7 & 8 are too dated.
I'm finally a part of this century:
  Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.
Not the remake, but if you want to do that, go qahead.
Hmm... I tried to get into Oblivion at one point after starting Skyrim,
but somehow the interface totally turned me off. Oblivion came out in a
time when I was just not playing all that many games, so I don't even
have nostalgia for it.
I'm still plowing through the remaster and all I can say is that, if
you have Skyrim, you aren't really missing much. It really feels
hollow compared to modern games. It's got some of the magic of Skyrim
(and Fallout) - but it feels barren in comparison; like it was a
prototype to those better games. It's just so lacking in character and
charm.
Sure, it's fun to see an icon on the compass and know that, just over
that hill, there's a new cave to discover, or a fort, or something...
but once you actually get there, your desire to EXPLORE that location
is low because you know it will be just like all the other
forts/castles/etc. There's such a limited 'tile-set' used to build
things in Oblivion that a sense of ennui sets in /really/ quickly. God
knows that the quests and characters can't make up for the lack
either; the dialogue and writing are extremely simplistic and it's
impossible to really /care/ about any of it.
In 2006, "Oblivion" was a marvel because of where it pushed games /technologically/; it's visuals, its open-world, the sheer amount of
items and detail, it's AI... they were all first-of-class. But games
have caught up and this makes the game's lack in other areas all the
more apparent. I'll never forget the impression the game made on me
twenty years ago... but it's really hard to enjoy it today.
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 16:50:54 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:This is kind of weird to me. Twenty yrs old for a video game is still a >pretty marvelous game. The only thing I can think of you are using
On 7/7/2025 8:58 PM, Locus Bring'r wrote:
WIzardry 6 7 & 8 are too dated.
I'm finally a part of this century:
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.
Not the remake, but if you want to do that, go qahead.
Hmm... I tried to get into Oblivion at one point after starting Skyrim,
but somehow the interface totally turned me off. Oblivion came out in a
time when I was just not playing all that many games, so I don't even
have nostalgia for it.
I'm still plowing through the remaster and all I can say is that, if
you have Skyrim, you aren't really missing much. It really feels
hollow compared to modern games. It's got some of the magic of Skyrim
(and Fallout) - but it feels barren in comparison; like it was a
prototype to those better games. It's just so lacking in character and
charm.
Sure, it's fun to see an icon on the compass and know that, just over
that hill, there's a new cave to discover, or a fort, or something...
but once you actually get there, your desire to EXPLORE that location
is low because you know it will be just like all the other
forts/castles/etc. There's such a limited 'tile-set' used to build
things in Oblivion that a sense of ennui sets in /really/ quickly. God
knows that the quests and characters can't make up for the lack
either; the dialogue and writing are extremely simplistic and it's
impossible to really /care/ about any of it.
In 2006, "Oblivion" was a marvel because of where it pushed games
/technologically/; it's visuals, its open-world, the sheer amount of
items and detail, it's AI... they were all first-of-class. But games
have caught up and this makes the game's lack in other areas all the
more apparent. I'll never forget the impression the game made on me
twenty years ago... but it's really hard to enjoy it today.
reverse psychology on me to berate me for calling Wizardry 7 & 8 dated >(which btw I'm back into I left Wiz 6 behind right after using Key of
Ramm because I don't like fighting the poison serpent repeatedly). Wiz 6
is dated for just the reason that its interface is < Wiz 7, in many
ways. You get an instant massive QoL upgrade moving to Wiz 7. Plus
there's an explosion when creatures die, which is cool.
Such is the case with Oblivion. As I said, there were quite a few
things that made the seventh game in the Elder Scrolls franchise quite >remarkable for their time. But since then games have become more
advanced, and added new features that are missing from Oblivion.
Compared to games like "Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2" or "Baldurs Gate
3", "Oblivion" doesn't come out on top. So why should 'average gamer'
bother if they will get a worse experience?
That's not the case with every game. I still think games like "Ultima
VII: The Black Gate" or "Full Throttle" or "Drakhan: Order of the
Flame" are still eminently playable, despite being older titles. But
that's because those games weren't as dependent on their technology,
and had supporting features (gameplay, setting, whatever) that made
the games memorable and fun after newer hardware made them
'old-school'. But that's because they were fairly unique in what they
did. I can even appreciate games like the original "Wizardry" trilogy
(even if I don't find them in the least bit fun), because they have a
style that's their own.
I can't say that with "Oblivion". It's "Skyrim", but less-so. It
hasn't the characters or story or variety of that game (much less
later Bethesda open-world RPGs, or any of its modern competitors).
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
<snip>
Such is the case with Oblivion. As I said, there were quite a few
things that made the seventh game in the Elder Scrolls franchise quite
remarkable for their time. But since then games have become more
advanced, and added new features that are missing from Oblivion.
Compared to games like "Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2" or "Baldurs Gate
3", "Oblivion" doesn't come out on top. So why should 'average gamer'
bother if they will get a worse experience?
Seventh? Surely you mean 4th; Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion.
Expansions are not games in their own right, and Battlespire and
Redguard are NOT part of the main series.
Arena-->Skyrim is Elder Scrolls
Battlespire is "An Elder Scrolls Legend" and
Redguard is "The Elder Scrolls Adventures".
The latter 2 did poorly enough they killed their respective prospective franchises.
That's not the case with every game. I still think games like "Ultima
VII: The Black Gate" or "Full Throttle" or "Drakhan: Order of the
Flame" are still eminently playable, despite being older titles. But
that's because those games weren't as dependent on their technology,
and had supporting features (gameplay, setting, whatever) that made
the games memorable and fun after newer hardware made them
'old-school'. But that's because they were fairly unique in what they
did. I can even appreciate games like the original "Wizardry" trilogy
(even if I don't find them in the least bit fun), because they have a
style that's their own.
I can't say that with "Oblivion". It's "Skyrim", but less-so. It
hasn't the characters or story or variety of that game (much less
later Bethesda open-world RPGs, or any of its modern competitors).
I never finished Oblivion even once, but finished Arena, Daggerfall and Morrowind (+expansions,) many times.
In the end Oblivion as just "fight your way up the towers to the portal, close portal, move to next Oblivion Portal and repeat".
It became less interesting than watching paint dry.
Xocyll
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 10:58:07 -0500, "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 16:50:54 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:This is kind of weird to me. Twenty yrs old for a video game is still a
On 7/7/2025 8:58 PM, Locus Bring'r wrote:
WIzardry 6 7 & 8 are too dated.
I'm finally a part of this century:
  Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.
Not the remake, but if you want to do that, go qahead.
Hmm... I tried to get into Oblivion at one point after starting Skyrim, >>>> but somehow the interface totally turned me off. Oblivion came out in a >>>> time when I was just not playing all that many games, so I don't even
have nostalgia for it.
I'm still plowing through the remaster and all I can say is that, if
you have Skyrim, you aren't really missing much. It really feels
hollow compared to modern games. It's got some of the magic of Skyrim
(and Fallout) - but it feels barren in comparison; like it was a
prototype to those better games. It's just so lacking in character and
charm.
Sure, it's fun to see an icon on the compass and know that, just over
that hill, there's a new cave to discover, or a fort, or something...
but once you actually get there, your desire to EXPLORE that location
is low because you know it will be just like all the other
forts/castles/etc. There's such a limited 'tile-set' used to build
things in Oblivion that a sense of ennui sets in /really/ quickly. God
knows that the quests and characters can't make up for the lack
either; the dialogue and writing are extremely simplistic and it's
impossible to really /care/ about any of it.
In 2006, "Oblivion" was a marvel because of where it pushed games
/technologically/; it's visuals, its open-world, the sheer amount of
items and detail, it's AI... they were all first-of-class. But games
have caught up and this makes the game's lack in other areas all the
more apparent. I'll never forget the impression the game made on me
twenty years ago... but it's really hard to enjoy it today.
pretty marvelous game. The only thing I can think of you are using
reverse psychology on me to berate me for calling Wizardry 7 & 8 dated
(which btw I'm back into I left Wiz 6 behind right after using Key of
Ramm because I don't like fighting the poison serpent repeatedly). Wiz 6
is dated for just the reason that its interface is < Wiz 7, in many
ways. You get an instant massive QoL upgrade moving to Wiz 7. Plus
there's an explosion when creatures die, which is cool.
I've nothing against older games. Some of my favorite games date back
two or three decades. I can appreciate older games for what they are.
I do often have problems /recommending/ these older titles to 'average gamers', though, because a lot of what made them special is de rigeur
today.
Such is the case with Oblivion. As I said, there were quite a few
things that made the seventh game in the Elder Scrolls franchise quite remarkable for their time. But since then games have become more
advanced, and added new features that are missing from Oblivion.
Compared to games like "Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2" or "Baldurs Gate
3", "Oblivion" doesn't come out on top. So why should 'average gamer'
bother if they will get a worse experience?
That's not the case with every game. I still think games like "Ultima
VII: The Black Gate" or "Full Throttle" or "Drakhan: Order of the
Flame" are still eminently playable, despite being older titles. But
that's because those games weren't as dependent on their technology,
and had supporting features (gameplay, setting, whatever) that made
the games memorable and fun after newer hardware made them
'old-school'. But that's because they were fairly unique in what they
did. I can even appreciate games like the original "Wizardry" trilogy
(even if I don't find them in the least bit fun), because they have a
style that's their own.
I can't say that with "Oblivion". It's "Skyrim", but less-so. It
hasn't the characters or story or variety of that game (much less
later Bethesda open-world RPGs, or any of its modern competitors).
Our time and money are limited and I think there are better ways to
spend those resources than with "Oblivion". Sure, if you've a
nostalgia for "Oblivion", or just absolutely love its style gameplay,
go for it. But I think on the whole people are better off playing
other games.
IMHO. YMMV. ioTLAtma.
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the >entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
<snip>
Such is the case with Oblivion. As I said, there were quite a few
things that made the seventh game in the Elder Scrolls franchise quite >>remarkable for their time.
Seventh? Surely you mean 4th; Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion.
Expansions are not games in their own right, and Battlespire and
Redguard are NOT part of the main series.
Arena-->Skyrim is Elder Scrolls
Battlespire is "An Elder Scrolls Legend" and
Redguard is "The Elder Scrolls Adventures".
The latter 2 did poorly enough they killed their respective prospective >franchises.
I never finished Oblivion even once, but finished Arena, Daggerfall and >Morrowind (+expansions,) many times.
In the end Oblivion as just "fight your way up the towers to the portal, >close portal, move to next Oblivion Portal and repeat".
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 05:34:00 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the >>entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
<snip>
Such is the case with Oblivion. As I said, there were quite a few
things that made the seventh game in the Elder Scrolls franchise quite >>>remarkable for their time.
Seventh? Surely you mean 4th; Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion.
Expansions are not games in their own right, and Battlespire and
Redguard are NOT part of the main series.
Arena-->Skyrim is Elder Scrolls
Battlespire is "An Elder Scrolls Legend" and
Redguard is "The Elder Scrolls Adventures".
The latter 2 did poorly enough they killed their respective prospective >>franchises.
Oooh! You gave me an 'Umm, actually...' moment! ;-)
As I didn't specify sub-series my initial comment was correct. The
games are all part of the Elder Scrolls franchise. Neither are they >expansions; they are stand-alone titles. In fact, they specifically
call attention to the fact in their titles: "Redguard: The ELDER
SCROLLS Adventure", and "Battlespire: The ELDER SCROLLS Legend". While
they are not part of the mainline series, they are part of the overall
Elder Scrolls franchise.
I never finished Oblivion even once, but finished Arena, Daggerfall and >>Morrowind (+expansions,) many times.
In the end Oblivion as just "fight your way up the towers to the portal, >>close portal, move to next Oblivion Portal and repeat".
It really is.
Bethesda for some reason /leaned hard/ into the "Oblivion Portal"
loop, and that decision does the game no favors. The first time you
have to do it -with the big portal in Kvatch- it's neat to visit
Oblivion. It's a tricky dungeon crawl where you have to go back and
forth through multiple towers to unlock your forward progress,
battling monsters you (probably) haven't seen yet in the overworld.
But then you have to do that same sequence AGAIN and AGAIN with a
portal in front of each of the eight cities in the "Aid for Bruma"
quest, and the game encourages you to do it even more by randomly
opening numerous Oblivion gates across the countryside (for a total of
up to 68 Oblivion portals).
Worse, there are only 11 varieties of Oblivion gates to explore, and
you will very quickly encounter the same map, with only randomized
treasure and monsters to differentiate them. The maps themselves tend
to be fairly tedious too (especially if you play them 'legitimately'
and follow the expected path), with far too many detours and
load-screens. Plus, there's really nothing to do in any of them except
kill and loot, given the lack of quests or NPCs therein. Nor does the
lack of visual variety help; it's all unrelenting red and brown.
Had Bethesda limited how often you had to travel into Oblivion, it
would have made the game much more interesting, just because those
treks into the hell-dimension would have become more memorable. But
the over-emphasis on the dimension, coupled with the lack of variety,
quickly made the whole thing quite tedious.
(This was, fortunately, one of the lessons learned when Bethesda went
to make "Skyrim". Not only is there more variety in assets, they don't
have you constantly going to the same place over and over again.)
The portals are a good way to grind loot, though. There's not much
USABLE treasure but you can make 5-15,000 gold per run, which is a
'good' way of bolstering your money supply early in the game. Of
course, that has its own issues with regards to game pacing and
balance but if all you're interested is in exploiting the mechanics,
then the oblivion gates are useful for that.
But that's not anything that makes for a good game, IMHO.
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 10:58:07 -0500, "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby"
<wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 16:50:54 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>This is kind of weird to me. Twenty yrs old for a video game is still a >>> pretty marvelous game. The only thing I can think of you are using
On 7/7/2025 8:58 PM, Locus Bring'r wrote:
WIzardry 6 7 & 8 are too dated.
I'm finally a part of this century:
Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.
Not the remake, but if you want to do that, go qahead.
Hmm... I tried to get into Oblivion at one point after starting Skyrim, >>>>> but somehow the interface totally turned me off. Oblivion came out in a >>>>> time when I was just not playing all that many games, so I don't even >>>>> have nostalgia for it.
I'm still plowing through the remaster and all I can say is that, if
you have Skyrim, you aren't really missing much. It really feels
hollow compared to modern games. It's got some of the magic of Skyrim
(and Fallout) - but it feels barren in comparison; like it was a
prototype to those better games. It's just so lacking in character and >>>> charm.
Sure, it's fun to see an icon on the compass and know that, just over
that hill, there's a new cave to discover, or a fort, or something...
but once you actually get there, your desire to EXPLORE that location
is low because you know it will be just like all the other
forts/castles/etc. There's such a limited 'tile-set' used to build
things in Oblivion that a sense of ennui sets in /really/ quickly. God >>>> knows that the quests and characters can't make up for the lack
either; the dialogue and writing are extremely simplistic and it's
impossible to really /care/ about any of it.
In 2006, "Oblivion" was a marvel because of where it pushed games
/technologically/; it's visuals, its open-world, the sheer amount of
items and detail, it's AI... they were all first-of-class. But games
have caught up and this makes the game's lack in other areas all the
more apparent. I'll never forget the impression the game made on me
twenty years ago... but it's really hard to enjoy it today.
reverse psychology on me to berate me for calling Wizardry 7 & 8 dated
(which btw I'm back into I left Wiz 6 behind right after using Key of
Ramm because I don't like fighting the poison serpent repeatedly). Wiz 6 >>> is dated for just the reason that its interface is < Wiz 7, in many
ways. You get an instant massive QoL upgrade moving to Wiz 7. Plus
there's an explosion when creatures die, which is cool.
I've nothing against older games. Some of my favorite games date back
two or three decades. I can appreciate older games for what they are.
I do often have problems /recommending/ these older titles to 'average
gamers', though, because a lot of what made them special is de rigeur
today.
Such is the case with Oblivion. As I said, there were quite a few
things that made the seventh game in the Elder Scrolls franchise quite
remarkable for their time. But since then games have become more
advanced, and added new features that are missing from Oblivion.
Compared to games like "Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2" or "Baldurs Gate
3", "Oblivion" doesn't come out on top. So why should 'average gamer'
bother if they will get a worse experience?
That's not the case with every game. I still think games like "Ultima
VII: The Black Gate" or "Full Throttle" or "Drakhan: Order of the
Flame" are still eminently playable, despite being older titles. But
that's because those games weren't as dependent on their technology,
and had supporting features (gameplay, setting, whatever) that made
the games memorable and fun after newer hardware made them
'old-school'. But that's because they were fairly unique in what they
did. I can even appreciate games like the original "Wizardry" trilogy
(even if I don't find them in the least bit fun), because they have a
style that's their own.
I can't say that with "Oblivion". It's "Skyrim", but less-so. It
hasn't the characters or story or variety of that game (much less
later Bethesda open-world RPGs, or any of its modern competitors).
Our time and money are limited and I think there are better ways to
spend those resources than with "Oblivion". Sure, if you've a
nostalgia for "Oblivion", or just absolutely love its style gameplay,
go for it. But I think on the whole people are better off playing
other games.
IMHO. YMMV. ioTLAtma.
Skyrim is a piece of shit by comparison 2 Oblivion. It encompasses one >territory.
A very small territory. It's fucking morbid - you're slated
for execution whereas Oblivion merely a life sentence. It's pretty
linear.
And finally, Spalls likes it.
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the >entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 05:34:00 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the >>>entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs >>>say:
<snip>
Such is the case with Oblivion. As I said, there were quite a few >>>>things that made the seventh game in the Elder Scrolls franchise quite >>>>remarkable for their time.
Seventh? Surely you mean 4th; Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion.
Expansions are not games in their own right, and Battlespire and
Redguard are NOT part of the main series.
Arena-->Skyrim is Elder Scrolls
Battlespire is "An Elder Scrolls Legend" and
Redguard is "The Elder Scrolls Adventures".
The latter 2 did poorly enough they killed their respective prospective >>>franchises.
Oooh! You gave me an 'Umm, actually...' moment! ;-)
As I didn't specify sub-series my initial comment was correct. The
games are all part of the Elder Scrolls franchise. Neither are they >>expansions; they are stand-alone titles. In fact, they specifically
call attention to the fact in their titles: "Redguard: The ELDER
SCROLLS Adventure", and "Battlespire: The ELDER SCROLLS Legend". While
they are not part of the mainline series, they are part of the overall >>Elder Scrolls franchise.
Not to quibble, but the main set of games are all just Elder Scrolls:
Name
The other 2 explicitly say Elder Scrolls Legend and Elder Scrolls
Adventure.
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 10:58:07 -0500, "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 16:50:54 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:This is kind of weird to me. Twenty yrs old for a video game is still a
On 7/7/2025 8:58 PM, Locus Bring'r wrote:
WIzardry 6 7 & 8 are too dated.
I'm finally a part of this century:
  Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.
Not the remake, but if you want to do that, go qahead.
Hmm... I tried to get into Oblivion at one point after starting Skyrim, >>>> but somehow the interface totally turned me off. Oblivion came out in a >>>> time when I was just not playing all that many games, so I don't even
have nostalgia for it.
I'm still plowing through the remaster and all I can say is that, if
you have Skyrim, you aren't really missing much. It really feels
hollow compared to modern games. It's got some of the magic of Skyrim
(and Fallout) - but it feels barren in comparison; like it was a
prototype to those better games. It's just so lacking in character and
charm.
Sure, it's fun to see an icon on the compass and know that, just over
that hill, there's a new cave to discover, or a fort, or something...
but once you actually get there, your desire to EXPLORE that location
is low because you know it will be just like all the other
forts/castles/etc. There's such a limited 'tile-set' used to build
things in Oblivion that a sense of ennui sets in /really/ quickly. God
knows that the quests and characters can't make up for the lack
either; the dialogue and writing are extremely simplistic and it's
impossible to really /care/ about any of it.
In 2006, "Oblivion" was a marvel because of where it pushed games
/technologically/; it's visuals, its open-world, the sheer amount of
items and detail, it's AI... they were all first-of-class. But games
have caught up and this makes the game's lack in other areas all the
more apparent. I'll never forget the impression the game made on me
twenty years ago... but it's really hard to enjoy it today.
pretty marvelous game. The only thing I can think of you are using
reverse psychology on me to berate me for calling Wizardry 7 & 8 dated
(which btw I'm back into I left Wiz 6 behind right after using Key of
Ramm because I don't like fighting the poison serpent repeatedly). Wiz 6
is dated for just the reason that its interface is < Wiz 7, in many
ways. You get an instant massive QoL upgrade moving to Wiz 7. Plus
there's an explosion when creatures die, which is cool.
I've nothing against older games. Some of my favorite games date back
two or three decades. I can appreciate older games for what they are.
I do often have problems /recommending/ these older titles to 'average gamers', though, because a lot of what made them special is de rigeur
today.
Such is the case with Oblivion. As I said, there were quite a few
things that made the seventh game in the Elder Scrolls franchise quite remarkable for their time. But since then games have become more
advanced, and added new features that are missing from Oblivion.
Compared to games like "Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2" or "Baldurs Gate
3", "Oblivion" doesn't come out on top. So why should 'average gamer'
bother if they will get a worse experience?
That's not the case with every game. I still think games like "Ultima
VII: The Black Gate" or "Full Throttle" or "Drakhan: Order of the
Flame" are still eminently playable, despite being older titles. But
that's because those games weren't as dependent on their technology,
and had supporting features (gameplay, setting, whatever) that made
the games memorable and fun after newer hardware made them
'old-school'. But that's because they were fairly unique in what they
did. I can even appreciate games like the original "Wizardry" trilogy
(even if I don't find them in the least bit fun), because they have a
style that's their own.
I can't say that with "Oblivion". It's "Skyrim", but less-so. It
hasn't the characters or story or variety of that game (much less
later Bethesda open-world RPGs, or any of its modern competitors).
Our time and money are limited and I think there are better ways to
spend those resources than with "Oblivion". Sure, if you've a
nostalgia for "Oblivion", or just absolutely love its style gameplay,
go for it. But I think on the whole people are better off playing
other games.
IMHO. YMMV. ioTLAtma.
On Tue, 15 Jul 2025 05:34:00 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
<snip>
Such is the case with Oblivion. As I said, there were quite a few
things that made the seventh game in the Elder Scrolls franchise quite
remarkable for their time.
Seventh? Surely you mean 4th; Arena, Daggerfall, Morrowind, Oblivion.
Expansions are not games in their own right, and Battlespire and
Redguard are NOT part of the main series.
Arena-->Skyrim is Elder Scrolls
Battlespire is "An Elder Scrolls Legend" and
Redguard is "The Elder Scrolls Adventures".
The latter 2 did poorly enough they killed their respective prospective
franchises.
Oooh! You gave me an 'Umm, actually...' moment! ;-)
As I didn't specify sub-series my initial comment was correct. The
games are all part of the Elder Scrolls franchise. Neither are they expansions; they are stand-alone titles. In fact, they specifically
call attention to the fact in their titles: "Redguard: The ELDER
SCROLLS Adventure", and "Battlespire: The ELDER SCROLLS Legend". While
they are not part of the mainline series, they are part of the overall
Elder Scrolls franchise.
In fact, it would be more accurate to say "Oblivion" was the _10th_ stand-alone game released in the Elder Scrolls franchise, as there
were three mobile game (released under the "Elder Scrolls Travel"
line, individually entitled "Stormhold", ""Dawnstar" and "Shadowkey")
that came out before "Oblivion".
(Also, there were two stand-alone mobile titles released /after/
Oblivion ("Elder Scrolls: Blades" and "Elder Scrolls: Castles" which,
with "Skyrim" and "Elder Scrolls Online", bring the total number of stand-alone games in the franchise to thirteen. And even more if you
include the various repackagings (Game of the Year, Ultimate, VR,
Remaster, etc.)... which I don't. But it's more than just the five
main games, anyway).
I never finished Oblivion even once, but finished Arena, Daggerfall and
Morrowind (+expansions,) many times.
In the end Oblivion as just "fight your way up the towers to the portal,
close portal, move to next Oblivion Portal and repeat".
It really is.
Bethesda for some reason /leaned hard/ into the "Oblivion Portal"
loop, and that decision does the game no favors. The first time you
have to do it -with the big portal in Kvatch- it's neat to visit
Oblivion. It's a tricky dungeon crawl where you have to go back and
forth through multiple towers to unlock your forward progress,
battling monsters you (probably) haven't seen yet in the overworld.
But then you have to do that same sequence AGAIN and AGAIN with a
portal in front of each of the eight cities in the "Aid for Bruma"
quest, and the game encourages you to do it even more by randomly
opening numerous Oblivion gates across the countryside (for a total of
up to 68 Oblivion portals).
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 10:58:07 -0500, "Lane \"Stonehowler\" Waldby" <wichitajayhawks@msn.com> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2025 16:50:54 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:This is kind of weird to me. Twenty yrs old for a video game is still a
On 7/7/2025 8:58 PM, Locus Bring'r wrote:
WIzardry 6 7 & 8 are too dated.
I'm finally a part of this century:
  Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion.
Not the remake, but if you want to do that, go qahead.
Hmm... I tried to get into Oblivion at one point after starting Skyrim, >>>> but somehow the interface totally turned me off. Oblivion came out in a >>>> time when I was just not playing all that many games, so I don't even
have nostalgia for it.
I'm still plowing through the remaster and all I can say is that, if
you have Skyrim, you aren't really missing much. It really feels
hollow compared to modern games. It's got some of the magic of Skyrim
(and Fallout) - but it feels barren in comparison; like it was a
prototype to those better games. It's just so lacking in character and
charm.
Sure, it's fun to see an icon on the compass and know that, just over
that hill, there's a new cave to discover, or a fort, or something...
but once you actually get there, your desire to EXPLORE that location
is low because you know it will be just like all the other
forts/castles/etc. There's such a limited 'tile-set' used to build
things in Oblivion that a sense of ennui sets in /really/ quickly. God
knows that the quests and characters can't make up for the lack
either; the dialogue and writing are extremely simplistic and it's
impossible to really /care/ about any of it.
In 2006, "Oblivion" was a marvel because of where it pushed games
/technologically/; it's visuals, its open-world, the sheer amount of
items and detail, it's AI... they were all first-of-class. But games
have caught up and this makes the game's lack in other areas all the
more apparent. I'll never forget the impression the game made on me
twenty years ago... but it's really hard to enjoy it today.
pretty marvelous game. The only thing I can think of you are using
reverse psychology on me to berate me for calling Wizardry 7 & 8 dated
(which btw I'm back into I left Wiz 6 behind right after using Key of
Ramm because I don't like fighting the poison serpent repeatedly). Wiz 6
is dated for just the reason that its interface is < Wiz 7, in many
ways. You get an instant massive QoL upgrade moving to Wiz 7. Plus
there's an explosion when creatures die, which is cool.
I've nothing against older games. Some of my favorite games date back
two or three decades. I can appreciate older games for what they are.
I do often have problems /recommending/ these older titles to 'average gamers', though, because a lot of what made them special is de rigeur
today.
Such is the case with Oblivion. As I said, there were quite a few
things that made the seventh game in the Elder Scrolls franchise quite remarkable for their time. But since then games have become more
advanced, and added new features that are missing from Oblivion.
Compared to games like "Kingdom Come: Deliverance 2" or "Baldurs Gate
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 1,064 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 146:18:50 |
| Calls: | 13,691 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 186,935 |
| D/L today: |
22 files (1,452K bytes) |
| Messages: | 2,410,869 |