Talk:The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Soule's inspiration for the soundtrack

This might be a rather trivial matter, but does anyone know what composer/film score Jeremy had in mind when he wrote the soundtrack to Oblivion? If I recall correctly, his main inspiration for the soundtrack to Morrowind was "The Planets", a classical work by Gustav Holst. Furthermore, by what I've gathered from a number of forums people seem to perceive "striking similarities" between Oblivion's soundtrack and film scores such as Pirates of the Caribbean, (surprise!) Lord of the Rings, and even Unbreakable. But, I haven't been able to find a single word from Soule himself regarding the issue. Any thoughts? 81.232.114.123 23:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Soon after Soule started to compose the score, he had a car accident. He had an emotion of no fear, although he was concerned for the people coming down the interstate at him. In the end, he only had a scratched elbow, but that emotion stayed with him. He wanted to make a comment about the human condition and the beauty of life, and he also wanted the soundtrack to be more even than the Morrowind soundtrack. http://www.firingsquad.com/features/jeremy_soule_interview/ praetor_alpha 14:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

FormID Bug

I was wondering whether it was worth mentioning the FormID bug on this page. Although the problem only became serious in Shivering Isles, it also exists in the Vanilla game. Players may run into the bug after a 1000 hours or so of play time, and in extreme cases, the formID of the player's character can be overwritten, destroying the saved game completely. In Shivering Isles the use of FormID's increases greatly in a certain part of the game, which causes them to run out much faster. I know that only a minority of people may run into the problem in the vanilla game, but it does exist and should be mentioned. At this time I'm not sure if the new patch from Bethesda works with the original game, or if it only fixes Shivering Isles. Its entirely possible for a user-made mod to recreate the problems in Shivering Isles and cause FormID's to run out faster. People who run multiple mods may be putting themselves at risk if they don't have a fixed version of the game.

In general, I don't think bugs are worth mentioning, unless they become big news. It was in the article for a little bit after Shivering Isles came out, but got removed after they beta patched it. Also, I don't know for sure, but patches for both Shivering and vanilla oblivion were released only a few days ago, implying that they fixed the same bug for both. --PresN 04:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Important

After completeing the cure for vapirism quest think twice about drinking the potion. After you have there is no going back. You will NEVER be a vampire ever again. This also goes for the pool in deepscorn hollow. That is why there is only one salt there. Dont do anything before being completly positive. One mistake can completely change your overall game experience.

Talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject. Also, sign your posts. --PresN

This is very true about the vampire cure but if you complete the main story and didnt pick any blood grass you will not be able to complete the quest. I know this for a fact because my lv 50 nord is now permanatly a vampire.

This is just a heed of warning to anyone who wants to be a vampire.

Crabs

Note:This article has almost completely no relevence to oblivion. Check out the page on dungeness crabs it is cool and amazing. Crab also tastes good. I have been trying to add some awsome pics to that "dungeness crab" page but cannot figure it out. The wikipedia cheatsheet and help pages were no help. Please help me out here.

Talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject...or other subjects. Also, sign your posts. --PresN 03:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Now seriosly why would y ou talk about a "crab" on a game site you sir are a prick.

Leveling

"Oblivion also added the idea of a leveled system, where the enemies encountered get progressively stronger as the player gains experience, rather than staying at a constant level. Enemies also gain increasingly better equipment, making higher level equipment largely inaccessible to a low level character, and quite easily accessible to players of sufficiently high levels.[citation needed]" I'm pretty sure that this was present (to some extent) in Daggerfall as well... Should this statement be edited from 'added the idea of a leveled system' to 'reintroduced the idea of the leveled system from Daggerfall'?

Actually, it was present in Morrowind as well, but Oblivion vastly increased the complexity and prominence of the system. --Ratwar 23:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A bit of level-scaling is present in almost every RPG. Well done it's a fine trait, take the varying strength and number of generic dungeon-dwellers in BG2 for example. But Oblivion went over the top, there is no challenge anymore, at high level bandits wearing equipment worth a fortune ambush folk for a few bucks. Unique artifacts are scaled down to worthlessness when you aquire them at low level. Actually, the easiest way to complete Oblivion is to never level up at all, the only thing you'll miss is using high-level items against opponents equipped with high level items.--89.54.156.12 (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Oblivion DEcreased the complexity IMO...It seems morrowind had way more skills and it was overall way more confusing. 72.241.1.123 (talk) 01:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

And Morrowind's character system is inferior to Daggerfall's. That's the way of things; for two decades CRPGs were confusing and boring for the broad masses. Bethesda is the spearhead of the party that now tries to adjust the genre to make RPGs appealing to those that never liked them before. At the same time the minority that once enjoyed RPGs has to observe each new release carefully lest they fall for another fraud like Oblivion was. --89.54.156.12 (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Gullstikka Awards

Should I be suspicious of this award? I can't read Norwegian, but any site whose web address begins with something like "http://www.ranumconsulting.net/ezpublish/" doesn't sound very trustworthy or...notable. Seems like it might just be a fansite...but, again, I can't read Norwegian at all, so I'll leave it to someone who can to tell me. As of now, though, the award is cited to a blog, so I'll remove it. Apologies if I'm wrong! Geuiwogbil 17:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...Appears they have some sort of awards show...with a projector, at least. Does that make them notable? They have an article on the Norwegian Wikipedia, though it has no references. (Is that an EN and DE thing only?) Their 2006 show was...hosted(?) by some mildly notable character named Jonna Støme. What does "var vert for spillprisutdelingen" mean? He went green for weird word? Støme has apparently done some programmes for NRK1, Norway's main broadcast channel. It seems like this Gullstikka thing is not so...minor...as it first seemed. I'm going to wait for some Norwegian to drop by and mock me before I put it back in the article though.

"var vert for spillprisutdelingen" means "hosted the game awards". Furthermore, here is another link regarding the issue, naming oblivion as RPG of the year: http://www.dinside.no/php/art.php?id=371691 It's definitely not a fan site or anything like that, these are real awards. Gullstikka is arranged by the Norwegian Game and Multimedia-Association. Also, here are the official homepages of Gullstikka: http://www.gullstikka.no/83.109.86.72 (talk) 19:55, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Further note: Heh. "Video games" is "Data- og videospill" in Norwegian. That is an incredibly sweet name. Geuiwogbil 18:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I decided to leave it in the article, though I changed the citation to the original website, and removed the listing from the "Best Game for PC/X360" section, as I didn't see that substantiated on the original website. Again, feel free to prove me wrong. Geuiwogbil 18:36, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Reviews & Awards Table

It's just exceptionally large. Now, this is mostly my fault. When I added it in, it was because we had a big listy section on awards. I thought, "Well, Halo did a fine job with that; they cut it all down to one fine table. It might be manageable if we did the same here." So I moved all the material into one large table to the left of the article. Since then, however, the thing's gone from big to huge, so I'd like to resuggest either Majestic's or PresN's suggestions regarding the box, as it seems that it's become even larger since they suggested them, back in late January. That is, either make the box an image, which users could click on to find detailed info, or trim the box down to including just the reviews. It's become pretty redundant, anyways, to list so many review scores, as we already link Game Rankings and Metacritic, who do that job far better than we do. I apologize profusely for having brought such a behemoth to this article, and I hope to make good my past errors by fixing them now. Further note: If we keep it, can we remove the colouring? It's always been a little unsettling to me. Geuiwogbil 19:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't feel to bad, note that I tracked and noted most awards so I made it as big as other however I have made attempts to keep it but shorten it aswell. I don't think you should remove listed awards although if you have to crop in then I reconmend cutting some reviews as like you said, game rankings and metacritic sum up most reviews. Stabby Joe 18:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Go for it! I'd like to point out in a despairing tone of voice that the size it is now is about 2/3 or less the maximum size it reached, before I rearranged, chopped, and changed the font size of the table. Right now it's every notable review and the awards they gave, maybe chop it to only the most notable reviews? I'll give it a whack right now. --PresN 23:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! It looks a lot better now. :) Geuiwogbil 23:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that "fewer awards" was mentioned in the to do list despite the fact many other articles have no problem displaying them and as said yourself the table looks good now so I don't feel the need to change such a table. If you think otherwise then do say so we may make any form of balanced result. Stabby Joe 23:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, it's not a problem with the table: it's that they're in the table, and they're in the prose. Look at it: "Oblivion holds an average review score of 94% for the Xbox 360, making it the 2nd highest rated game of 2006 and the highest rated Xbox 360 game released to date,[62] 93% for the PC, making it the 5th highest rated game of 2006, and 93% for the PS3 version, making it the highest rated game overall for the PS3; PC Gamer UK, PC Gamer US, PC Zone, GameSpot, IGN, Electronic Gaming Monthly, and OXM have all awarded the game 9/10 or more, and praised the game for its immersiveness and scope, winning the game awards from various outlets.[6] The television program X-Play, citing similar reasons, awarded the game a rare 5/5, with Eurogamer awarding it a perfect 10/10. GameSpot called the game "simply one of the best role-playing games ever," awarding a score of 9.6 for the Xbox 360 and 9.3 for the PC[63]" All those names! All those scores! It's too much! Since all that info is in the table, the prose should focus on things the reviewers praised the game for, like "immersiveness and scope" in the above extract. Geuiwogbil 12:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean although I find the game ranking stats useful, but might do with a rewording prehaps? Stabby Joe 17:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

"Dupe Glitch"

should it be noted that there still is a battle on many forms about the ability to glitch and coppy many items in the game. Obviously the programers didnt intend for this to happen and have fixed 2 methods of this happing. within 2 days of finialy fixing it a player found a third. It is not certian if the programers will release a new patch to fix the glitch again as they allready released one decated to just removing the glitch. There is also the fact that some players like it some dont should this issue be noted.

Not unless some reliable source picks it up, no. Unless GSpot or GSpy or IGN or PCG or EGM or CGW or Jstique or K't'k'u or something with some sort of paid editorial staff writes it up, we can't mention it. The Wiki has no truck with forums. Apologies! Geuiwogbil 03:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Where the hell is Jiub?

There I said it. Sorry, but someone needed to.Who really cares about jiub I mean he is just a dorky character he doesn't even do anything!!!!!!!!!!Nitro24 (talk) 13:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.130.183.64 (talk • contribs) 06:47, June 13, 2007.

Although this talk page is for discussing the Wikipedia article, you may find reading the Easter eggs section on this game over at UESP Wiki to be helpful. They answer this question. Later, if I am able, I'll provide a link for you.--Lloegr-Cymru^{£ ¥} 12:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Jiub can play rockband just as good as me. dont forget he makes me horny.

Edge Magazine: 15th best game

While I don't have time right now for refferences and such accordingb to the BBC Oblivion has been named 15ht best game ever by Edge, anyone want to add? Stabby Joe 18:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link? Geuiwogbil 19:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6261546.stm Stabby Joe 23:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that it is listed at number 19, not 15. - hahnchen 16:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, the 6 before it confused things. Stabby Joe 17:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)Jiub makes me horny

Mods for the 360 version?

how can i get them to my 360 disc(or console)?i cant from live bcoz i dont hav it so plz tell me.

Download of PC then link to 360... and the wiki boards are not game forums. These boards are for improving the article. Stabby Joe 00:26, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Still coming for PS3?

I have been hearing but have no definite proof that the only way ps3 players will be able to get the shivering isles is the GOTY edition. If anybody can confirm this that would be great.Gopher squisher007 02:32, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I bought the PS3 version, and just a few days ago Shivering Isles was released on PSN. But no, you could also get SI from downloading it off the PSN.Kuja43 14:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)Why in the hell would they put it on the PS3.Nitro24 (talk) 13:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

GOTY in the UK

Is there any word on the release date of the GOTY edition in the UK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merco (talk • contribs) 17:17, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

The Reception section is pretty one-sided

Judging by the Reception part of the article, all of the reviews were positive, and while that is generally true, the article doesn't mention any of the more neutral reviews and their causes (the leveling system, too high system requirements etc.). For example, the largest Russian gaming website AG.ru (1,950,000 hits on Google if you have any doubt of its notability) rated the game at 79/100, mainly for "turning the RPG into a fantasy-style FPS", "copy+pasted dungeons", "primitive stealth system", and most of all "the world-leveling-with-player system that was good for Diablo II, but in Oblivion it literally kills the desire for exploring the world". Also, the review calls the Radiant AI a "an illusion that quickly falls apart once you really start watching the NPCs." The combat AI also received a kick (mainly for the horrible behaviour of the NPC companions). Thhorrible interface - "the small map without a zoom function, large console-style font like in Pirates of the Carribean, small inventory screen (only 6 items), and only 8 hotkeys, with quite a weird menu." The review also accuses Bethesda "of not adapting the console version for PC, despite all the promises."

I don't mean to say that the review is entirely negative. It notes the "excellent quests, with almost none of the typical "find and bring/kill something", as well as excellent graphics (as well as the ridiculously high system requirements required for those).

I hope that this can be a first step to improving the NPOV of the article. If nobody objects, I'll rework (and shorten) the above to include it in the article. Erratic Communist 09:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's quite one-sided at the moment and the criticisms are legitimate. Chensiyuan 09:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. You'd want to make a SEPERATE paragraph for the cons instead of doing anything to the current part and of course has to be roughly the same size as the pros to be a neutral article.... long before the reception section was to negative, and I can see some people going over board with this plausbile idea of adding a bit more of it, we do get vandalism.

HOWEVER I'm not sure that Russian review you have is 100% needed, or even to look for a very negative review... most reviews mentioned have cons listed anyway. Just one review from a little known (1,000,000+ might sound big but not big compared to most English sites) shouldn't be used to highlight all the cons. Stabby Joe 18:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Reviews may have cons mentioned, but the article doesn't. Erratic Communist 19:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

...Yes... I know that, I didn't say what you're implying I did. What I'm saying is most, if not all the positive reviews of Oblivion at the same time mentioned the cons so it would be better to use those instead of a random Russian site, most likely no one has heard of nor seems to contribute to the average review score at Game Rankings. Stabby Joe 12:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear God-Emperor of Wikipedia, please don't kill me until I finish this flamewar post...

Please refrain from saying things like "most likely no one has heard of" It's not in English, so it obviously can't be well-known outside Russia (and vice versa - IGN and its satellites are barely known there). However, that doesn't give anyone a right to brand it as "random" or "little known". Yes, the site is smaller than Western ones since it deals only with PC games. But 12.778 games in the database, 900 GB of files, 12 sub-sites and 200k registered (so you can triple that number) users certainly don't belong to some average fanboy site. Also, it has an article on Russian Wikipedia.

Excuse me for that outbreak. What I mean is that the site or its size has nothing to do with a good (IMHO) review that does well to point out all the flaws of an overly-hyped game Oblivion is, and a few citations (along with ones from the other reviewers) should make the Reception a NPOV-friendly section of the article. The article should mention the game flaws. Oblivion is not perfect. And now, I'm going to prepare for my gruesome death for spreading fanboyism and flamewars ;) Erratic Communist 13:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

...that was some outbreak. First off, calm down. Secondly, I'm all for adding in some negatives, but what I'm saying is well known sites have these listed. To crop thing most tend to leave out lesser known sources. Most people reading into Oblivion would recognise the well known sites more so. It might be popular in Russia but who on the English wiki is going to read a refference to a Russian site? Hence why I said little known, and the fact that you make it seem like we have to list the negatives from a Russian site is "random". However your opening sarcastic post along with some of your other lines aren't helping your proposal, you mention Oblvion as "over hyped" as if your opinon was fact, in that case your propsal seems like you want to give the reception section MOSTLY negative which is NOT neutral. I'm probably wrong but you have given off that vibe personally. And I'm not for flame wars, they're pointless and slow down the process of making good articles... and they never lead anywhere since these pages are monitored. I'm happy to discuss your proposal but please be a little more mature. I've seen your previous contributions so I can easily say you're not a troll or fanboy. Stabby Joe 22:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

HOWEVER I'm not sure that Russian review you have is 100% needed

Needed for what?

Just one review from a little known (1,000,000+ might sound big but not big compared to most English sites) shouldn't be used to highlight all the cons.

I agree. Just one negative review may not warrant an entire paragraph on cons. Also, I agree the degree of notability may be meaningful when ascertaining the notability of the source.

While I think that linking to a Russian article as an external link may be inappropriate for English Wikipedia, the fact is that Oblivion was released in Russia, and suggesting that Russians aren't capable of reviewing a game is improper. SharkD 01:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Audio section has both positive and negative reception to the dialogue component, but for the soundtrack, it may be good to have an idea of how well received it was? Chensiyuan 06:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What? I never said Russian were incapable, all I'm saying is there are plenty of English sites that list the very same cons and who is a English wiki user going to look at, an english or a russian language site? I'm NOT saying we shouldn't list cons. Stabby Joe (talk) 15:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because there are other views of a topic doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be mentioned, as pointed out with the Flat Earth example in WP:UNDUE. If you read the dot points there actually, such negative views on Oblivion are held by an extremely small minority, and thus these negative criticisms could be said to have no place in here, verfiable or not. Ong elvin (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

See metacritics' PC version user comments? that's lots of disillusioned players. and all the forums out there. The section is one-sided because it considers mainly the established medias, and not that much of individuals. 222.95.184.106 (talk) 08:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

False. Metacritic's user comments, as with all user input, is one sided itself. If there's nothing wrong, users do not complain. All free (in both meanings) forms of user comments on a game or whatever are always negatively biased. User:Krator (t c) 10:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Nah, See Gamespot, there's lots and lots games whose user score are higher compared to media score, that's especially true for some "cult" game(which includes TES series itself). For this issue, see the Xbox/PS3 version of the game on metacritics, its user comments are much more favorable. MAYbe it is because, well, as someone claimed, the game is "dumbed down" for consoles. Since most media didn't explored so deep into the game (considering the time given), I think people who had played through the game got the right to have some say in it.222.95.184.167 (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Though I hate to take this position, I fear I must say that we (peacefully) disagree here. I stand by my original assessment of negative bias of user comments (maybe ratings are less so because the threshold is lower to rate than to comment). Both of us do not have any sources to back our position up besides original observation, sadly. I wouldn't disagree with any negative reception comments added in the reception section, but try to find a good review instead of attributing statements to "the majority of players". User:Krator (t c) 14:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The Imperial Library has moved!

Hey folks,

The Library can no be found at til.gamingsource.net and we now have our own domain:

http://imperial-library.info/

I've updated a few pages, now I hope somebody will be so kind to update all the other links on wikipedia. The substructure of the library has remained the same so you can just swap about the domain.

86.80.122.213 16:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)Proweler

About the Article

Ok, in this topic, some moron decided to put shivering isles on the page (something like wikignoming, correct me if im wrong), but doesn't shivering isles have its own page? either this should be modified, or taken out.--[[User:Maljam1]] 00:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, modified the article so that the shivering isles thing isnt there anymore. Remember, people, don't put your signature on a page!--[[User:Maljam1]] 00:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Add a site

While my edits are rarely questioned, I'll be all democratic and talk about it here first. I was surprised that a MobyGames link isn't included. While not necessary for all games, I think it is appropriate here since it has loads of screenshots and other information that would be valuable. Yeah or nay? (here is the link for reference). — Frecklefσσt | Talk 17:17, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Um, unless anyone objects, I'm inclined to add this despite the warnings. There's a good reason for the warnings, but I'd like some input on adding the MobyGames link. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what it contributes, and I'm generally uncomfortable about MobyGames links. They provide screenshots, sure; but don't most reputable gaming sites—GameSpot, GameSpy, IGN, etc.—already do the same? It provides review compliations, but without the same breadth as GameRankings and without the same discriminating taste as Metacritic. Besides, the list of reviews in here already fulfills whatever role we could reasonably expect of a reviews table, failing the "unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article" criterion of "Links to be Avoided". I prefer to keep the links lists short and deep, and I'm not sure how much depth of content MobyGames provides, especially in comparison with what's already here. I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise if you specify exactly what "other information" MBG provides over and above the other sites referenced and/or linked. Anyways, thanks for bringing it up on the talk page and waiting so patiently for responses! It's so very polite! Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly all links to MobyGames have to be considered on a case-by-case basis. I've come across many entries that are little more than what we would considered "stubs". In those cases, I don't recommend adding a link. But in this case, the Oblivion entry is chock full of additional information which we don't (and probably won't) provide. In addition to numerous screenshots (which you correctly note can be found on other sites), it also has the game's full credits, tips & tricks, advertising blurbs, cover art and a whole bunch of other information that, while not suitable for an encyclopedia article, is interesting nonetheless. I think it'd be a valuable addition for this article. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 14:10, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, alright. I'm not sure about the relevance of "tips and tricks", though; we don't typically link to GameFAQs, which would probably be better for that sort of information. I'm not too fond of the link, but your point seems reasonable enough. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 15:18, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you (even though it appears you're giving your consent begrudgingly). I don't know why you're uncomfortable with MobyGames links, but I assume you have your reasons. I find the site really useful as a jumping-off point for developing new video game articles. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 12:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms

"The fast-travel system found in Arena and Daggerfall, but left out of Morrowind, returned in Oblivion." I think you should define 'fast-travel' first, then explain that it appeared/didn't appear in previous titles. The way it's written, it suggests the feature is notable. I'm not saying it isn't; there just needs to be some support for it. I have similar reservations regarding the rest of the paragraph. No need to remove any information—just reorganize it.

"One major focus during Oblivion's development was correcting Morrowind's imbalance between stealth, combat and magic skill sets." The article doesn't state whether the developers were successful in doing this. Without this, I feel the sentence's relevance to the article is shaky at best.

"In preparation for the game, developers gathered together materials from all manner of sources—'mountains of photographs snapped from ventures outside the dark confines of our office...huge numbers of nature books that our artists use for recreating authentic trees, grasses, and plants.' 'Texture images, reference photography of architecture, natural formations' that the team has drawn from personal trips overseas also formed a part of the team's sources. 'We pull,' said producer Gavin Carter, 'from as many sources as we can get our hands on.'[19] Where, in Morrowind, the chief graphical focus of the team was on water, the chief focus in Oblivion lay on its forests, its 'big, photorealistic forests'." Makes to great a reliance upon quotes to describe the setting. It's OK to use quotes to back up facts; but, to use them exclusively makes it look like the developers are making all the asseverations. Also, it would be better to describe the setting, and then discuss its development. Maybe it would even be better to move all the development talk to a special 'Development' section. I'm not sure it's entirely relevant.

The 'Setting' section spends too much time discussing physical phenomena in the game. A setting consists of more than just the landscape of an invented world. Maybe rename this section to 'Nature'?

"Oblivion, unlike previous series games, offers few loading screens or breaks in the action as the player travels through the game world. Only when moving from interior to exterior environments, or when fast-traveling, does the game pause to load.[26] The gameworld of Oblivion is cordoned off at its edges by an invisible and impassable wall. In most places, the development team built this limit around an insurmountable physical barrier, like a mountain, but as this was not always possible, there are places where the screen displays a "you've reached the edge - go back" message, and prevents the player further access. The player character may still look into these regions, however, as the team still built in landscape several miles deep." This paragraph is not relevant. It should be moved to a 'Gameplay' section.

Rating change - Some statement should be made as to the effect that this decision was controversial. I know it may seem obvious to whomever is familiar with the game that this is the case; however, an extemporaneous reader might wonder, "So what? They changed the rating."

Modifications - I think that some mention should be made of the modding community. The article should discuss how it has brought people together in the spirit of kinship and improved the gaming experience for the game's players.

SharkD 00:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the criticisms, SharkD; it's rare that we get such helpful comments, especially unsolicited ones. I agree with most of your suggestions, in spite of the fact that I was the individual responsible for the majority of offending sentences. Just to note, I won't be able to work much on the article itself, since I've got a heavy workload IRL at the moment. To go through them:

Gameplay and Skillset Balancing

• It's been in the priorities list to re-write the Gameplay section someday. At the moment, it does embarrassingly little to describe the content of the gameplay to an outside observer. Most of the section is a holdover from when directed towards comparing Oblivion to its predecessor Morrowind, and so those features that are most apparently different, like Fast-Travel, get more weight than what remains the same between the games. I believe the fast-travel bit was important to the game—I recall a number of reviewers commenting on its convenience—but I agree the section as a whole is overweighted with such minor comparisons. I'd prefer a section more devoted to the basics of Free-form gameplay, skills and leveling, and the basics of combat; the key features in the game. The more trivial and comparative details can be probably relegated to the sub-article.

• I disagree with the "shaky" relevance here; with or without external commentary, I think the fact that it was one of the team's major gameplay focus moving from Morrowind to Oblivion is relevant. That said, I agree wholeheartedly with improving the article with reviewer commentary here, or down south in the Reception section. It shouldn't be too hard to find.

My point is that the article doesn't say how the imbalance was improved over the previous installment. The article fails to state how the listed changed features were an improvement over Oblivion's predecessor. All sentences in a paragraph should be related. If the listed changes aren't demonstrated as improvements over Morrowind, then the first sentence is irrelevant. SharkD 09:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Erm, we don't need to establish an improvement; we don't need to prove Bethesda's point for them. The two points are included because they're relevant to the subject of the paragraph—the first, because it details the developers intentions, the second because it describes aspects of the game as they are—and both fall under the subject of the paragraph, viz. skill sets & combat. They are, therefore, related. I can't make the connection between the two facts, I can only compile them under an appropriate thematic scheme; anything else would contravene the principles of WP:OR. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, you shouldn't be letting Bethesda make your points for you. If you state that Bethesda made improvements to the game (and you do do this), you do need to back this up. SharkD (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the article (not I, for I didn't write three-quarters of the "Gameplay" section) does not do this. It notes changes that have been made, but it in no way styles them as "improvements"; if you can demonstrate how it does, this implicit bias should be culled. They are merely changes, and nothing is needed to back this up beyond a source noting the change (which we should have more of, btw.) I am not "letting" Bethesda do anything. Such suggestions confuse me. I follow reviewers, previewers, recorded commentaries &c. in what I describe, and only allow Bethesda's direct intrusion where those gate-guards have failed to interpret, parse, or otherwise process Bethesda's message. I'm not sure what needs to be backed up. I have, in any case, added in a throwaway sentence about GameSpot's lauding of the three categories at the tail of the paragraph, all for my good friend SHARKY-D. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 04:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. Earlier you stated you were the author of most of the disputed text. ... The opening sentence restates a claim (unsupported later in the paragraph) that one of Bethesda's aims was correcting imbalances found in the previous game. The remainder of the paragraph is an (unrelated) list of changes that were made to the game. To prominently insert a claim made by a developer at the beginning of a paragraph, and then simply follow it up with a list of changes without a disclaimer, might (probably, will) lead the reader to interpret the list as backing up the claim. SharkD (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that makes sense. Apologies. Perhaps it would indeed be better in the Dev. section, if only to avoid those sorts of faulty associations. (Note: I did contribute the offending "Setting" section and the offending sentence here, just not the following list of changes.) Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Just read the new stuff you added to the end of the paragraph. I think it's an improvement, as it sort of ties everything back in with the lead sentence. Unfortunately, only one of the points raised in the GameSpot review you cited call a changed feature an "improvement" over what is found in Morrowind. SharkD (talk) 11:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What should probably be done is a full rewriting of the Gameplay section, noting only the most significant changes, and their corresponding effects on the game. That way we don't introduce changes without noting their effects. You're totally correct, though, that some major restructuring is in order. The problem with the article was that I basically added facts as I found them, adding them to the most relevant sections; I never did the second pass and vetted for the structure of the article as a whole, and was distracted in other areas. Now the second pass is being done, belatedly, by you, and revealing all sorts of ugliness. Thanks for the hard work, SharkD. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence to a state that I'm satisfied with (it makes a less bold claim). I haven't checked whether the rephrased sentence contradicts the sources. I'll do that tomorrow if you don't get to it first. Off to bed now. SharkD (talk) 11:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I can't actually check the source ATM—I'm firewalled—I'll get back to it when I can. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The new sentence reads: "One major focus during Oblivion's development was rebalancing Morrowind's stealth, combat and magic skill sets." This, coupled with the GameSpot reception, make for a good paragraph, IMO. SharkD (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Setting Section and the Overuse of Quotes

• I haven't really finished that section: At the moment, I used a section built predominantly out of quotes, because I didn't want the developers insertions to become stated fact. Dressing the section up with reviewer comments would help. I'm not sure how well describing the setting and then its development would go off—I've found few sources to describe setting as setting, in any effective or comprehensive way. The real meat of the discussion is principally in such developer-related comments.

This section is discussed here. SharkD 22:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

That's now been resolved, I believe. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe these criticisms apply to the following paragraph, as well.

"Oblivion does not offer deformable terrain, although, like Morrowind, it does offer dynamic weather and time, shifting between snow, rain, fog, sunny skies, overcast skies, etc.[25] Developers pushed the game's view distance "extremely far out", so that the player character can see "for miles - mountains, towns on the horizon, grand forests in the distance, everything", according to Carter. Oblivion makes more use of multi-level environments than did previous games, varying the topology to a greater extent than did Morrowind.[16] A higher density of content was pursued in the creation of the game's dungeons, with a greater level of "monster encounters, quest NPCs, puzzles, and our brutal physics-based traps" than Morrowind had.[22] The populations represented in Oblivion do not match the numbers attested in previous in-game literature—populations of ‘thousands upon thousands'. The development team decided to set the NPC populations at a level that would play well, rather than one that would match game lore.[14] According to a Microsoft press release, Oblivion's game world is approximately 16 square miles (41 km²) in size.[26] Wilderness quests, ruins and random dungeons were added to fill the additional space.[22]"

SharkD (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to parse those out. It shouldn't be too difficult. A few strokes of the "Delete" key should suffice. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 04:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem is, I'm not as familiar with the sources as you are. There are like 71 of them, and you've already read them. SharkD (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Made some changes. Feel free to criticize or adjust. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. SharkD (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• One major problem here is the limited discussion to be found in the sources: remember that, per WP:ATT, we with the sources always; and that, per WP:OR, we can't get anything out of them other than what they directly say. This is the main problem with your: "A setting consists of more than..." comment: I'd love to talk about the cultural, literary, political, settings etc., but I wouldn't be following reliable third-party published sources in doing so: I'd basically be following my own guides. If you can find a good piece (or even just a good series of comments) on the setting, I'd love to add it. I haven't found any myself. The renaming proposal sounds helpful, although it goes against tradition.

"In fiction, the setting of a story is the time, location and circumstances in which it takes place."

"Setting is widely considered a fundamental element of fiction. Among other elements cited are character, plot, theme, and style. Debate continues regarding the number and composition of the elements of fiction."

Only one of those things is listed. Having the article not discuss other elements of setting is misleading. SharkD 09:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I am limited by the sources. I cannot move beyond them. To do so would be to breach the principles of WP:WAF, WP:OR, and WP:RS. I report on what the sources have deemed important enough to report on. Give me a source for the suggested material, and I can do so. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is that you've titled a section "Setting", and only discussed a minor aspect of it. If your sources do the same, then it's an issue of you aping sources that are themselves misleading. As a Wikipedia editor you should notice these things. SharkD (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As a Wikipedia editor I have discretion only between sources, never beyond sources. I cannot but "ape" sources. Everything must be Verifiable, nothing can be original. I do notice these things; it doesn't mean I can do anything about them. I'm certainly not about to let the section devolve into an OR conjuring of setting from the game itself. That's just not kosher: it would be reliant on primary sources alone, it would either be an individual reading, or a potted "consensus" of the source text, it would be in-universe, it would be, above all, a violation of our content policies. "Aping" the sources or not, that's something I'm not willing to do. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 04:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if your sources are misleading, then you are being misleading, too. You can't simply accept everything a source says verbatim. You have to show some care. Generally, we choose sources with editorial oversight to aleviate this issue. But the issue is still paramount. SharkD (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the sources are misleading, and I don't think that's what you're saying either: they're just incomplete. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A question, SharkD: What would you propose? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 05:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the offending passages be corrected. SharkD (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Corrected to what? A title change, as Scartol recommends, would work well; it would restrict the reader's expectations. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

A title change would be satisfactory. But, change it to what? I'm torn on "Environment" or "Technology", or a combination of the two (my personal preference, but I don't know how to stick the two terms together). SharkD (talk) 18:26, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "Environment". I don't think either "Technology" or a combination of Tech. & Envir. would work well, simply because Tech info is also covered in the Development section. Now the Environment section can be a subsection of a future "Setting" section. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

How about "Landscape and architecture"? Also, I think the section should be moved to the Development section (or maybe to Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion), as the intro and exit sentences focus on development. SharkD (talk) 20:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• I think this material is relevant: it describes the physical contours of the game space, in a way that affects "Setting", not "Gameplay".

Loading screens/breaks in action, fast travelling and insurmountable barriers affect gameplay. The game would still be set in Cryodiil, in the year 3E 433, and during a time when forces of darkness seek ultimate dominion over Tamriel, regardless of whether you've reached the edge and have to go back. SharkD 10:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe they affect gameplay more than they affect the "location and circumstances" of the fiction. I'm sorry if I'm being a bit daft, but I'm afraid I don't understand the point being made in your second sentence. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

My point is, if there's an artificial barrier surrounding Cryodiil, it does not affect the bounds of Cryodiil within the fictional world explored in the series. It's a matter of whether something is design-imposed as opposed to being in-universe. Its artificiality, alone, breaks the fourth wall. I believe that setting should be described in in-universe terms. Invisible barriers is a case of meta-information in regards to setting, and don't belong in that section. SharkD (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that section should be written in solely in-universe terms—I don't think anything should ever be written in solely in-universe terms when there is valid external information to be had. I believe WP:WAF will stand by me on that. Fourth-wall breaking is exactly what we should be doing: "The approach is to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded." The game is the style, the game is the content, the game is the setting made manifest. We comment on the setting as manifest in the game, which requires discussion of its contours. We are an encyclopedia; we shouldn't cordon off sections of our articles for readers to bask and play in fantasy worlds. We are editors of cold, hard facts. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 04:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not able to explain myself clearly on this issue. My point was not that setting should be described from an in-universe perspective. Rather, that setting should be described as if it were (and it is) an in-universe thing. For example, setting does not exist in the foreword or afterword of a novel. The author does not intersperse a work of fiction with out-of-universe comments. SharkD (talk) 06:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still quite certain that the material is relevant, even if not phrased correctly. To use your analogy, if the foreword or afterword contributed specifically and significantly to the establishment of setting, constructing backstories or setting the mood or such, it should be noted in the relevant section of Wikipedia's article on the work. (Supported by sourcing, of course.) Now, games are rather different than fiction in certain respects, in that their consumers actively participate in the game world. So, while defining the limits of Barchester as written in the text might be of limited relevance to discussions of the work, defining the limits of the game-field are of considerable importance to discussions of the game. Discussions of Pong would hinge on the linearity and limitations of the game-space, while discussions of Grand Theft Auto would emphasize the freedom of movement offered in the game. I'm beginning to see that the material I added does not, unfortunately, contribute a great degree in this regard. Re-naming the section to "Environment", as Scartol reccommends, seems to be a good idea. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, my comments regarding the fourth wall were with respect to a game element, not an author of an Wikipedia article. SharkD (talk) 06:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

So, I doubt WP:WAF will stand by you on this one. SharkD (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, I think I may agree with you now. I think. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to myself not as an author, but as an abstract "Wikipedia contributor". I'm pretty sure the point is of limited relevance to the article, so I'll stop myself here. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Good point. Controversy.

• Ooh, can you find a source for that? It sounds like it tiptoes right into Original Research territory, and that's a big no-no.

Generally insightful comments! It's so nice to find a good reviewer! But we're running up the beach here into those areas where people should have written about a particular aspect of the game, but didn't; I can't do much about those areas, and it's not Wikipedia's role to address that fault. Oh, would that the budding field of ludology take light of these matters, and write some papers on these topics! If you've dug up some juicy sources, please, share! Um, and I can't address these issues myself: Busy. Again, thanks SharkD. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You should find sources to fill the apparent holes you're seeing, if you feel that the article as it stands is lacking. The content of the article must be mapped at every point to content in reliable secondary sources, and I cannot add content where the sources are lacking. This is something that must be understood. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not working on this article ATM. I'm busier somewhere where there are reliable sources sufficient to make a "comprehensive" portrait of the subject, which seems to be the key limitation for this article's growth, and which SharkD has been pointing out again and again. I will not be able to make any changes brought up here. Thank you for your time. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 04:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As a member of WP:LIT and an English teacher, I've been called in to discuss setting here. (I'm also an RPG nerd who plays Oblivion, so we have a cosmic-order connection going on.) If I understand the disagreement correctly, I agree with SharkD with regard to the following: "My point is that you've titled a section "Setting", and only discussed a minor aspect of it." As it's currently written, the Setting section should in my opinion be titled "Environment", since it revolves mostly around the physical details of the Oblivion world. A section about setting would discuss:

• Historical background (what year it is in the game, what happened in Morrowind, etc)
• The continent of Cyrodiil, its major population centers, etc
• Social structures – what the culture of the kingdom is like, what the major institutions are, etc

Would these things be considered WP:OR? I don't think so; just like plot summaries, they are uncontroversial assessments of the work in question. If you can find commentary on setting, great. If not, you're just describing what is to be found in the game. There's nothing wrong with that. (So long as you don't make outrageous claims about what's in the game, or turn to opinion.)

I would also point out that the lack of reliable sources is one of the severe difficulties of working on articles about very recent popular culture. Books have been written about Pac-Man, but it's going to take a while for the world to produce enough reliable sources to make articles like these truly comprehensive. In my opinion, the commentary and social analysis just don't exist yet, and won't for some time. Just as with the 1998 Puerto Rican general strike, it means there's only so far we can take them. – Scartol • Tok 16:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with much of what you say, Scartol, although I wouldn't feel comfortable writing such a section for this article. I generally feel that commenting on fiction in a way that is both encyclopedic and non-OR is a delicate balancing act. A few notes: (1) The social structures part would probably be considerably more difficult than the first two; such things lend themselves to much contestable interpretation in reality, much less fiction. (2) "Analysis" is important, I agree, but I don't think it would necessarily have to be "social analysis". I believe things can be important enough and deep enough to be analyzed without necessarily having had much effect on society. The analysis would have to come in other ways, analyzing the game as a purveyor of narrative, or the psychological effects of the game's rule-sets, or the abstract nature of the game's "flow"; I do agree, however, that articles on such topics should have real meat to them. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 18:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm from the Literature wikiproject as someone asked a question about setting. I'd say that in this case, the heading is fine. "Environment" would also be fine as a heading title, too, though. It's just a matter of preference. Setting does describe location, culture, time period, etc. etc. You seem to have the idea already. Just add whatever the sources provide and I'd say don't worry too much about the title of the heading. Wrad (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Merger of the Mobile game here

This is an idea that has grown with time as the thought of a Featured Topic for the Elder Scrolls games developes. The mobile article is so short, and could be slipped easily into this article, making on stronger article and closer to a Featured Topic! Judgesurreal777 17:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. Just slip it in under the expansions. Perhaps rename the "Expansion pack" section to "Related games"? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 17:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Or you could just create a whole new "Related Games" section. Kuja43 14:15, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Engine

As I understand it, SpeedTree was used to develop the foliage. It's not present in the actual game. Is this correct? SharkD (talk) 21:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's how I remember reading it. I don't know what the purpose of the "Engine" section in the infobox is, to tell you the truth, but if it's specifically game-bundled things then, yes, SpeedTree should be removed. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:07, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, SpeedTree should *NOT* be removed; as You can see from a Press Release ([1]) that Oblivion makes use of SpeedTreeRT, which as described by IDV themselves, ([2]) is a real-time middleware product. An "engine" by any other name. Nottheking (talk) 15:13, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

Okay, I've been reading the latest edits to the Criticism thread, and it sounds to me more like attempts at cleanup. So I think it's best to move it here, if you two up there can see this. Besides, that section's getting kinda long anyway. ;) Ong elvin (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Environment: Perhaps you could turn this into a subsection of Development?

Modifications: I'm making this a subsection of Expansion Packs since they're pretty much related.

Ong elvin (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with moving "Environment" to "Development" (an alternative would be to cut the dev talk from the section). Additionally, I think the section should be renamed to "Landscape and architecture". I'm not sure if "Modifications" should be moved to "Expansion packs". Maybe if "Expansion packs" were renamed to "Expansions and modifications". How closely are expansions and modifications for Oblivion related, exactly? SharkD (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Loosely, I'd imagine, from what I've read. I don't think the two should be conjoined. I'm as yet uncertain as to where and what purpose the current "Environment" section should be moved, but I'm adamant that the current content be retained in some form. Why "Landscape and architecture"? I don't believe the content would justify "architecture"; we don't talk about style or function. Landscape seems sensible, but lacks the "built" aspect of the gameworld. I'm quite fine with "Environment". Geuiwogbil (Talk) 06:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Umm, renamed the section "Additional content". Putting everything under "Expansion packs" is a bad idea. Bethesda has a very specific and limited definition of such, and we don't want to add any ambiguity to the article. What's more, I simply don't think user-made modifications fit under such a category, nor do tangentially-related Mobile Phone games. The title seems better to me now, but perhaps I've put too much material into an excessively broad category. Thoughts? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the naming of "Expansion packs" versus "Additional content," and while I agree that maybe Modifications shouldn't be forced in the same category if it's not suited there, I also think it has no place as a whole section of its own. My stance on that is to make Modifications a subsection somewhere, where ever it is suited. Ong elvin (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

So, um, you agree that it should be called "Additional content"? I'm a bit tired, I can't make sense of everything. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 07:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I still prefer "Expansions and modifications", with the mobile game in its own external section, with the infobox retained. I don't think "Additional content" applies to the mobile game, as it is a complete, separate game. You can try changing "Infobox VG" to "Infobox VG Hidden" if you're worried about it taking up too much space. Ideally there would be a hidden infobox that retained the game screenshot. I'll see if anyone is willing to create a new template that works in such a way. SharkD (talk) 04:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yeah, the Mobile game should definitely be in a section of its own; Spinoffs are nearly always treated differently to Expansions. Ong elvin (talk) 08:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

VG Assessment

In response to the request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment, I'm proposing this article for A-class. Convention requires another assessor to agree before A-class is given. The main problem with the article that would prevent it from getting to FA is that there are not enough references in the plot section. --PresN (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I agree with PresN on this, rating A-class, but needs references for the plot. You might consider using Template:VG Reviews as well, using line breaks such as The Orange Box to deal with multiple platforms. -- Sabre (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I took away Bamafan1111's edit as it was completely opinionated and clear vandalism. Report him now. Check his edit if you don't believe me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.75.19.94 (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Removed some random garbage about penis(?) --Anonymous403 (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

HP Lovecraft comparisons

I removed the section regarding HP Lovecraft comparisons. It's OR. If those comparisons can be cited (obviously, not to a blog) they can stay. Otherwise, please do not re-insert them.

Thanks!

F.U.R hurts Wikipedia 13:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Difference between "plug-ins" and "expansions"?

I'm curious as to this particular distinction, due to the main Oblivion article being fairly insistent that Knights of the Nine is a "plug-in," despite the Wiki definition of an expansion pack being the following:

[An] expansion set, or supplement, is an addition to an existing role-playing game, tabletop game, or video game. These add-ons usually add new game areas, weapons, objects, and/or an extended storyline to a complete and already released game.

All of these criteria seem to describe Knights of the Nine to a "T", being a literal expansion of the original quest – and nowhere on the official Bethesda site is this distinction made between the two, "plug-in" vs. "expansion." Yet, Shivering Isles is the only mod classed as a true "expansion" in the article, despite both technically perfectly fitting the definition of an "expansion."

Think this might need to get looked at a bit more closely and re-evaluated, here. The Bandsaw Vigilante (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

There are in the game many Mods or modifications made by Bethseda or by Gamers these CAN be purchased as with KodN but are these Mods expansions? well with the above argument YES but realisticly no so as KodN is alike to them in many respects e.g they do both add new game areas, weapons, objects and quests so KodN is a plug-in as are these Mods. Shivering isles is an expansion as it adds HUGE amounts of quests and is Officially made by Bethseda. if you want to argue this niggly point further I suggest you take it to our kind friends at http://www.uesp.net/wiki/Oblivion:Oblivion, they will I am sure finally clarify this point for you as at the UESP wiki they know an awful lot about that kind o' thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.209.34 (talk) 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

IIRC, it was pretty common to draw a distinction between the two in the gaming press: check, for example, GameSpot's statement on the release of the Game of the Year edition: "The new version will include the original game, expansion pack The Shivering Isles, and the extra content pack The Knights of the Nine." Or check 1UP's note on Shivering Isles: "Several online publications have already reported the first details on The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion: Shivering Isles, the first official expansion pack to Bethesda Softworks' open-ended RPG (Knights of the Nine, on the other hand, is simply bonus content), as European magazines PC Zone and PC Gamer recently ran features on it." Or Joystiq's post: "The latest issue of PCZone spills the beans on Shivering Isles, Bethesda's first true Oblivion expansion (Knights of the Nine was really just a lengthy quest)." I can't find anything "official" in the material as of yet (but there's a lot of material on, for example, The Elder Scrolls IV: Knights of the Nine and Development of The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion to be parsed. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 21:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot's Reviews

As you may have noticed... I've added the GameSpot's section here for OBLIVON, as i suggest it should be done with other games. I say anyone who agrees with me should go out there, find some games here in wiki and copy paste the reviews from GameSpot to enrich wiki's content and richness. Just do as i did later, add a link at the external links sections so people may find where its taken from.... :)) Boky (registered user, didnt log in :P) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.144.161 (talk) 08:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

WIKI STAFF plz, bring gamespots review section back, its a pitty not to have this on other games too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.144.161 (talk) 08:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

We cannot permit the reproduction of large amounts of copyrighted text. It's against the law, it's against Wikipedia policy, and it's ugly to boot. If people wanted to see G-Spot's reviews, they'd go to G-Spot. Now, it's perfectly acceptable to include G-Spot's opinions in our "Reception" section, their sense conveyed through paraphrase and/or selected quotation. Reproducing the entire review, on the other hand, is just egregiously bad. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 09:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyway it would be good to at least include the GameSpot's opinions, citations and so on... for example THE BOLD TEXT AT THE BEGINNING OF EACH GAMESPOTS GAME REVIEW ARTICLE. I think you should suggest the creation of that section in game articles.... what do you think? i think it would be very useful to users, since gamespot is one of the most visited game sites. other than gamespot, you can use other game sites as well such as IGN, too... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.144.161 (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Its not going to happen. If we do we're been unfair to every other game review site and clutter the page with confusing text that bloils down to an ad.

You may hold G-sopt in high regaurd but alot of people don't. And lets not forget this isn't a review of the game its a article about the game, major diffrence.

(60.228.57.129 (talk) 08:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC))